2. So now the battle moves to 2015 and we can keep twiddling our fingers in despair. :( I really wonder why was it listed before a bench comprising Justice Uday U Lalit (esp after the last recusal)? Wasn't the fate of hearing on 8th Oct a foregone conclusion? Why did the HSC waste its day? Surely some application of mind is expected from the concerned authorities deciding the bench. :(
@Harry: "...some application of mind is expected..."
I don't see how anyone could fail to agree with that observation.
Litigation is, as it is, a painful and slow process in our country. All stake holders, not just the administrative machinery responsible for listing cases, need to proactively ensure delivery of justice is not delayed over and above the excruciatingly long periods that are the norm.
Observers can be pardoned for feeling that both the recent mis-listings were avoidable.
I am ignorant of Supreme Court procedures but this was a simple administrative SNAFU and should have been sorted out before a 'hearing'. Is there no one accountable for such delays in administering justice ? There should be a simple process to point out such a situation to the Registrar and cases reposted appropriately. But then we would NOT have "tareekh pe tareekh".
As expected! Speaks volumes about our incompetent BABUDOM. Registry chose to list the case only in those benches in which two recently elevated judges from advocates were members and were connected with the case. First time it could have been MISTAKE but second time DELIBERATE??
Involvement of previous lawyers/ pleaders in a batch of connected cases and their presence subsequently on the bench hearing the case is a fit case for simple automation. I am certain if we can have a MoM success in the first attempt this too shall succeed, if only the judicial system makes that first attempt.
From my understanding, the case would have been listed before any of the Ld Judges who have heard the TP (C) No. 56 of 2007 (Justices Katju, Lodha, Gyan Sudha Mishra - all retired) or IA No. 9 of 2010 in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007 (starting with then Justices Lodha, Thakur and Dave) and other Justices who heard the CP (C) No. 328 of 2013.
Now that the Ld Justice Lalit has recused himself, I hope the RDOA legal team would interact with the Registrar and his team for an expeditious hearing before 2015 (and disappoint Harry!).
Is it possible to file a RTI application & find out on what basis the next date of hearing is fixed.If this is not possible may be a public interest petition would be in order
@Venkatesh VT: I think the direct litigants themselves are best placed to submit to the Hon'ble Supreme Court over this documented and, mostly, unwarranted, series of delays. Perhaps they'll enlighten others someday what really transpired.
Our HSC should follow other countries Supreme Courts. In USA Judges will recuse from the proceeding soon after listing instead of waiting till hearing day. Thus they could save time and money for petitioners.
@DV The URL provided by you is not linked to the blog post, which, in any case, is from a different blog and concerns a totally different topic. It would be best to raise your queries there.
A similar matter was referred to on the RDOA blog and can be seen by following this link.
Thanks for prompt update sir.
ReplyDeleteRgds,
RC
After all who is in a tearing hurry? If some ESM conk off in the interim, some savings might accrue to the Govt!
ReplyDeleteMoD will still have to pay, if the Apex Court decides in favour of Petitioners.
ReplyDeleteDear Sir,
ReplyDelete1. Thanks for the prompt update.
2. So now the battle moves to 2015 and we can keep twiddling our fingers in despair. :( I really wonder why was it listed before a bench comprising Justice Uday U Lalit (esp after the last recusal)? Wasn't the fate of hearing on 8th Oct a foregone conclusion? Why did the HSC waste its day? Surely some application of mind is expected from the concerned authorities deciding the bench. :(
@Harry: "...some application of mind is expected..."
DeleteI don't see how anyone could fail to agree with that observation.
Litigation is, as it is, a painful and slow process in our country. All stake holders, not just the administrative machinery responsible for listing cases, need to proactively ensure delivery of justice is not delayed over and above the excruciatingly long periods that are the norm.
Observers can be pardoned for feeling that both the recent mis-listings were avoidable.
I am ignorant of Supreme Court procedures but this was a simple administrative SNAFU and should have been sorted out before a 'hearing'. Is there no one accountable for such delays in administering justice ? There should be a simple process to point out such a situation to the Registrar and cases reposted appropriately. But then we would NOT have "tareekh pe tareekh".
ReplyDeleteWas it required to wait till this day ??
ReplyDeleteAs expected!
ReplyDeleteSpeaks volumes about our incompetent BABUDOM.
Registry chose to list the case only in those benches in which two recently elevated judges from advocates were members and were connected with the case.
First time it could have been MISTAKE but second time DELIBERATE??
Lets not look for warts all the time. If it was deliberate then it could have listed it before a Bench whose Judges are new to the case.
DeleteAtleast Justice Dave has heard the case as IA No.9 of 2010 in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007.
Newspapers state there are about 65000+ cases before the Supreme Court and the Registry must be trying to do its best.
Involvement of previous lawyers/ pleaders in a batch of connected cases and their presence subsequently on the bench hearing the case is a fit case for simple automation. I am certain if we can have a MoM success in the first attempt this too shall succeed, if only the judicial system makes that first attempt.
DeleteFrom my understanding, the case would have been listed before any of the Ld Judges who have heard the TP (C) No. 56 of 2007 (Justices Katju, Lodha, Gyan Sudha Mishra - all retired) or IA No. 9 of 2010 in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007 (starting with then Justices Lodha, Thakur and Dave) and other Justices who heard the CP (C) No. 328 of 2013.
ReplyDeleteNow that the Ld Justice Lalit has recused himself, I hope the RDOA legal team would interact with the Registrar and his team for an expeditious hearing before 2015 (and disappoint Harry!).
Dear Sir,
ReplyDelete"disappoint Harry!"
Ha Ha Ha.... :D
That was a good one indeed! :)
Surely I will be most happy to be disappointed! :)
warm regards,
Is it possible to file a RTI application & find out on what basis the next date of hearing is fixed.If this is not possible may be a public interest petition would be in order
ReplyDelete@Venkatesh VT: I think the direct litigants themselves are best placed to submit to the Hon'ble Supreme Court over this documented and, mostly, unwarranted, series of delays. Perhaps they'll enlighten others someday what really transpired.
DeleteOur HSC should follow other countries Supreme Courts. In USA Judges will recuse from the proceeding soon after listing instead of waiting till hearing day. Thus they could save time and money for petitioners.
ReplyDeleteSir What about this issue?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.indianmilitary.info/2012/06/implement-enhanced-5th-pay-commission.html
@DV The URL provided by you is not linked to the blog post, which, in any case, is from a different blog and concerns a totally different topic. It would be best to raise your queries there.
ReplyDeleteA similar matter was referred to on the RDOA blog and can be seen by following this link.
@DV
ReplyDeleteAnswer to your good question above was 'pre-written' on 20 June 2012. Pls see
http://www.indianmilitary.info/2012/06/implement-enhanced-5th-pay-commission.html?showComment=1340176834528#c4273282177695485552
Request is for the blogger to pursue the case.
ReplyDelete