|
HIGH COURT
Poll panel has overriding powers
Tribune News Service Chandigarh, September 21
Holding that the state Election Commission possessed “powers to pass any order for ensuring free and fair polls”, Mr Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel of the Punjab and Haryana High Court today ruled that the commission also enjoyed “powers to suspend an election where the returning officer had illegally rejected the nominations”. The orders were passed on a petition by Mr Lek Ram of Madho Singhana village in Sirsa district. Claiming to be a candidate for the post of sarpanch, the petitioner had contended that the elections were kept in abeyance after an ex parte inquiry was apparently held into a complaint filed by another candidate, Sanjay Kumar, alleging rejection of his nomination papers unfairly. The respondent, Mr Lek Ram had added, was the nephew of Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala. Dismissing the petition, Mr Justice Goel ruled: “Principles of natural justice, in such a situation, may not require hearing the affected parties, though the authority is required to act fairly and after the application of mind”. Referring to the current cfase, Mr Justice Goel added: “It is patent that the returning officer acted illegally and it could not be shown by the petitioner that the action of the officer in rejecting the nomination was valid. The rejection of the nomination does not appear to be justified and there is no reason to assail the view taken by the commission in this regard”. The Judge concluded: “I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order after it has been explained that the commission had reasons for suspending the elections. The writ petition fails and is dismissed”.
Contempt notice to Secy, CEComing down heavily on “government authorities” for avoiding the implementation of court orders “forcing the citizens to approach the court time and again for the grant of relief”, a Division Bench of the High Court today asked the state of Punjab and other respondents to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act should be not initiated against the erring officers”. Pronouncing the orders on petition filed by Mr Pawan Kumar and five other apprentices working with Bhakra main line, the Bench, comprising Mr Justice Swatanter Kumar and Mr Justice J.S. Narang also asked the respondents to explain “why costs should not be ordered to be recovered personally from the erring officers for omissions and lapses”. The Bench also issued notice to Punjab’s Secretary in the Department of Irrigation, along with the Chief Engineer (Canals). The case will now come up for further hearing on October 16. The Judges observed: “Despite two specific orders by a Division Bench and a Single Bench, and the serving of a legal notice, the respondents have failed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders on a representation submitted by the petitioners till date compelling them to approach the court for the third time”. In their detailed order, the Judges added: “This case is a glaring example of how government authorities in position avoid the implementation of court orders and force normal citizens to approach the court time and again for the grant of relief. They added that the petitioners had initially filed a writ petition for regular increments. The petition was disposed of by a Division Bench, but despite specific directions, the matter was not reconsidered by the authorities compelling the petitioners to file a contempt petition.
Costs imposed on IT DepartmentOur Legal Correspondent adds: A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Mr Justice J.L. Gupta and Mr Justice Ashutosh Mohanta today ordered the imposition of Rs 11,000 as costs on the Income Tax Department for non-issuance of refund HAFED. The petitioner asked for the refund many times. The authorities kept on dilly-dallying. HAFED ultimately filed writ petition in the High Court. The High Court issued notice to the Income Tax Department and asked the Assessing Officer to file affidavit after which refund with interest amounting to Rs 1,31,00,000/- was issued in August, 2001. The court taking a serious view for such an inordinate delay in issuing the refund, imposed costs on the department of Rs 11,000.
 |