जज साहबान थोड़ी इमानदारी बरते : पक्षपात से ऊपर उठे. : ये पब्लिक है सब जानती है मानानिय न्यायमूर्ति ज्योति शरण जी आपकी विश्वसनीयता संदिग्ध हो चुकी है मोहन श्रीवास्तव से जुड़े मामलों में. Now the time has come to make provision for periodical exam of the so called lordship and also to enquire their property, character and link with litigant if any complain is made . the things that took place yesterday in Patna High court, I have decided to reveal the real faces and the intelligence of our lordship for public scrutiny . there was a writ against the adjournment of meeting called for no confidence motion . once on 10th july the said meeting was called for but the requisite councilors could not turn up and in disguise of a provision of Bihar Municipal no confidence motion Rule 2 ( iv) ,that refer section 50 of the municipal act for quorum, was adjourned for 23th july mean today. this adjournment was illegal hence we prefer writ that was heard by Justice Jyoti Sharan. That Mr. Jyoti sharan was stick to the single provision and was not willing to construe the said provision in content with other provision. Concept of statute is very clear , provision of an act should be read in isolation if to reach on right conclusion, it appears that the provision should be construed in context of other provision of the act that must be read with the relevant other provisions. In our case, the very important issue whether one can take advantage of his own wrong was involved that is why many other provisions were referred. No confidence motion is not an agenda. agenda is brought by the Municipality whereas motion is moved by members and onus lies upon the person who brought the motion. if the persons who brought motion fail to carry out , in other sense , to muster the support required to pass such motion that would be treated as defeated . Mr. Jyoti Sharan failed to conceive this logic . Earlier too, in the year of 2010 the Jyoti sharan along with two other Justice Mr. Deepak Mishra and Mr. Mihir kumar Jha committed same type of blunder while disposing a LPA that was heard by full bench of Patna High court. LPA no. 618 of 2010. in the said case they all unanimously passed an impugned order on the basis of a single provision without construing with other provision of the act . that order was passed my client .the same was quashed by the Honble Supreme court which appreciated our views in Civil appeal 2843 of 2011, SLP ( Civil) no. 21928 of 2010. what took place yesterday was disappointing . The stand taken by Mr. Jyoti Sharan shows no changes or improved in skill. another angle which I conceive is some biased and prejudice intention because in the earlier LPA the same mohan srivastava was interested . I criticize such act on part of a Judicial authority that of the rank of Justice High court.
Posted on: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 05:53:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015