Plea against appointment rejected
Tribune News Service

CHANDIGARH, Dec 20 — The Punjab and Haryana High Court today dismissed a writ petition preferred by Dr R.J. Dash, PGI Professor, contesting the appointment of Dr N.K. Ganguly, Director-General, Indian Council for Medical Research, as acting Director of the PGI.

Mr Justice Jawahar Lal Gupta and Mr Justice V.M. Jain, who passed this order, raised two questions during the course of proceedings. First, is Professor Ganguly usurper of the post of Director of the PGI? Secondly, should he be ousted by issuing a writ of quo warranto?

In reply to these questions, the Judges held that when Dr Dash had approached the High Court, the appointment of Dr Ganguly was not in conformity with the provisions of rule 7 of the PGI Act. Therefore, the High Court had restrained him from taking over as acting Director of the PGI.

Speaking for the Bench, Mr Justice Gupta held that later on the PGI Governing Body met, considered and decided to appoint Dr Ganguly as acting Director. The Bench also incorporated in its order the minutes of the Governing Body.

The minutes said: “The Governing Body observed that of late there has been considerable controversy about the functioning of the institute. In order to avoid further exacerbation of the controversy, after detailed discussion, it was felt that as an interim arrangement, in the overall interest of the PGI, it would be appropriate to appoint an acting Director who is not associated with the recent functioning of the institute.”

“In this context,” the minutes added: “It (Governing Body) felt that the person chosen to be acting Director

should be an eminent scientist of high stature who is not a candidate for the post of Director, and is also not working at the institute.”

The minutes of the Governing Body’s meeting, the Bench observed, clearly said that the institute considered it appropriate to exclude the contenders for the Director’s post to take over as acting Director. Therefore, the Governing Body chose to appoint an outsider as acting Director.

This decision of the Governing Body was in conformity with the provisions of rule 7 of the PGI Act.

The Bench held that a writ of quo warranto was issued only to save citizens from a usurper of the public. Such a writ could be issued only when the appointment had not been made by the competent authority.

HC curbs on ‘people’s panel’
By Our Legal Correspondent

CHANDIGARH, Dec 20 — On a number of writ petitions against the so-called “People’s Commission”, which probes allegations of abductions, murders, etc at the hands of state agencies during the days of terrorism, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today restrained the commission and the interveners from holding public sittings and making investigations into the cases which have already been decided or were pending before courts.

A Division Bench comprising Mr Justice G.S. Singhvi and Mr Justice Amar Dutt who handed down the judgement today, further restrained them from issuing summons to the officers of the government and other agencies to appear before the commission for purposes of the “so- called investigations and inquiry into complaints of alleged violation of human rights allegedly committed by the functionaries of the state.”

The writ petitions against the commission were filed by Mr Sudarshan Goels, an HC advocate, and others.

The Bench, however, made it clear that “this order will not prevent respondent No. 3 and interveners from collecting information regarding violation of human rights, if any, by the state and its agencies and approach the court or reference of such cases to the state Human Rights Commission and the national Human Rights Commission for appropriate consideration.”

After rejecting the objection regarding the locus standi of the petitioners against the commission, the Bench, referring to the allegation that the commission is attempting to set up a parallel system of adjudication, observed that “it is difficult to comprehend how a private body can be allowed to do so and usurp judicial powers. Apart from this, the charter framed by the interveners includes a clause which empowers the Commission to reopen the decided cases which cannot be done without following the procedure of law.

“In our opinion neither any functionary of the state nor any private individual can have the right to arrogate to itself the power to adjudicate and decide the dispute except when permitted by the law enacted by Parliament or state legislature. Power, if upheld, would amount to attack on the established system, said the Judges.

Commenting on the citizens’ right to freedom of speech as advocated on behalf of the commission, the court held that he had the right to receive and disseminate information.

Permitting the respondent to raise issues like abductions and murder of innocent persons, the Bench made it clear that the heinous offence of abduction and murder would not be covered under the law of limitation under the Criminal Procedure Code and can be taken cognizance by the courts without any limitation.