Editors Pick

Citing SC Bar, Delhi HC Rejects Plea Of Coal Scam Accused Against Framing Of Charge [Read Judgment]

Apoorva Mandani
29 Oct 2016 5:03 AM GMT
Citing SC Bar, Delhi HC Rejects Plea Of Coal Scam Accused Against Framing Of Charge [Read Judgment]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The High Court of Delhi on Thursday dismissed a petition challenging a Special Court order framing charges against Director of Gagan Sponge Iron Private Ltd (GSIPL) Mr. Girish Kumar Suneja in a Coal block allocation case.

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court order dated July 14, 2014, wherein the Apex Court had made it clear that challenges to Special Court’s orders in the Coal Scam cases would only be heard by it.

“It is trite law that directions of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution are binding on all the Courts and the High Court is bound to come in aid thereto to see that the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are enforced within its territory,” Justice Mukta Gupta observed.

The Court rejected the contention that by refusing to entertain the plea, the High Court was denying to the petitioner his right to remedy. It reasoned that unlike a right of appeal which is a statutory remedy, there is no right to revision or invoking the inherent powers or seeking superintendence of the High Court, as these are procedural facilities available to a litigant.

“Thus there being no right to a party to invoke revisional/ inherent/ superintendence powers, the argument that there would be violation of the right if the remedy is denied by the High Court cannot be sustained. Further the power of superintendence is being exercised by the Supreme Court by entertaining a petition challenging the order directing framing of charge and there is only a change in the forum and not the remedy,” the Court therefore ruled.

The petitioner, Mr. Suneja had challenged the Trial Court’s order through which it had directed framing of charges against him and 14 others. Charges were to be framed for offences punishable under Sections 120-B (Criminal conspiracy), 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, as also Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Criminal misconduct by public servant). The case related to the alleged irregularities in allocation of Amarkonda Murgadangal coal block to Jindal Steel and Power Ltd and GSIPL in 2008.

Read the Order here.

This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.
Next Story