'Supreme Court Not A Walk In Place Just Because Chandigarh Is Near To Delhi': SC Frowns On SLP Challenging Adjournment

Shruti Kakkar

27 Nov 2021 6:19 AM GMT

  • Supreme Court Not A Walk In Place Just Because Chandigarh Is Near To Delhi: SC Frowns On SLP Challenging Adjournment

    The Supreme Court recently dismissed with Rs 20,000 costs a special leave petition which was filed challenging an adjournment order passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court.Disapproving the filing of the SLP, the Supreme Court observed that the Top Court is not a walk in place only because Chandigarh happens to be in the proximity to Delhi.The bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM...

    The Supreme Court recently dismissed with Rs 20,000 costs a special leave petition which was filed challenging an adjournment order passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court.

    Disapproving the filing of the SLP, the Supreme Court observed that the Top Court is not a walk in place only because Chandigarh happens to be in the proximity to Delhi.

    The bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh observed,

    "The fact remains that the learned Judge only obliged the counsel for the petitioner by accepting the request for adjournment. Yet the order is sought to be faulted by the petitioner by filing a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. If this is not a misuse of process of law, one can say little else. This Court is not a walk in place only because Chandigarh happens to be in the proximity to Delhi."

    On account of wastage of judicial time, the bench also imposed a cost of Rs 20,000 on the petitioner and directed for depositing the same with the Supreme Court Group "C" (Non- Clerical) Employees Welfare Association within four weeks from the date of order.

    The bench in the order also considered that the SLP had been preferred not on any other fact or even the fact that the order was wrongly recorded but only because the High Court erred in adjourning the matter mechanically for three months without issuance of notice to the respondent.

    The fact of long adjournment without any interim protection taking away petitioner's right to approach the Higher Court was also recorded by the bench in its order.

    While dismissing the SLP the Court said,

    "We do not know why the adjournment was requested- whether the counsel was not ready or whether there was a lack of material instructions from the petitioner to the counsel!"

    Case Title: Ramesh Chander Diwan V. Central Bureau Of Investigation| Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8730/2021

    Bench: Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh

    Click Here To Read/Download Order


    Next Story