[Contempt Of Court] Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses PIL For Direction To Consider Amendment To Chhattisgarh High Court Rules, 2007 [Read Order]

Shreya Agarwal

5 Nov 2020 2:11 PM GMT

  • [Contempt Of Court] Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses PIL For Direction To Consider Amendment To Chhattisgarh High Court Rules, 2007 [Read Order]

    The Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur has dismissed a writ petition by Advocate Santosh Pandey seeking a direction to the Centre, Law Department of the state of Chhattisgarh, and the registrar of the Chhattisgarh HC to consider a representation by the petitioner calling for an amendment of the HC Rules, 2007 by incorporating guidelines under the contempt...

    The Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur has dismissed a writ petition by Advocate Santosh Pandey seeking a direction to the Centre, Law Department of the state of Chhattisgarh, and the registrar of the Chhattisgarh HC to consider a representation by the petitioner calling for an amendment of the HC Rules, 2007 by incorporating guidelines under the contempt jurisdiction.

    Dismissing the plea, the single judge bench of Justice P.Sam Koshy noted that, the HC Rules, 2007 being Rules framed invoking Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution, the nature of the relief sought was not one which would be brought by way of a mere amendment to the Rules themselves.

    Justice Koshy wrote that, "The nature of relief sought for by the petitioner is one which would be touching upon the power and jurisdiction of a Hon'ble Judge exercising the power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which again is not within the domain of the respondents in the present writ petition to be monitored by issuance of any guideline."

    It was also pointed out that the petitioner was informed of the rejection of his representation through the Registrar General vide a note-sheet signed by the Chief Justice, Chhattisgarh High Court on 27.01.2020 itself, which was provided to the petitioner under an RTI application. As such, his grievance had been redressed and the option to approach another forum for assailing the said order was at the petitioner's disposal.

    The court refused to accept the petitioner's contention that his representation being considered by a Full Court, rather than being rejected by the Registrar General himself could be asked for as a matter of right, and held that a decision on consideration of a case by the Full Court was the prerogative of the Chief Justice only

    Click Here To Download Order

    [Read Order]



    Next Story