HC reject Rly plea, upholds stay on Banerjee report

Ahmedabad, Mar 20: Gujarat High Court today (Mar 20, 2006) dismissed a petition filed by the Railway Ministry challenging a stay on any further action on U C Banerjee Committee report, which had described the Godhra train carnage as an 'accident'.

The Railway Ministry had challenged the stay ordered by a single judge bench of Justice M R Shah (of the same court) on March 7, while hearing a petition filed by a survivor - Nilkanth Bhatia.

Bhatia had questioned the validity of the Committee, appointed by the Railway Ministry, to probe certain aspects of the fire in S6 coach of the Sabarmati Express train, when a Commission appointed by the state government was already in place.

''Now the report cannot be acted upon. It cannot be presented in Parliament or relied upon in any way,'' said the petitioner's counsel.

Stating that there was a strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, the bench comprising Justices M S Shah and S D Dave observed that the Committee should not have been appointed, citing section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act and section 119 of the Railway Act.

This point will be taken up by a single-judge bench next month when the pending petition of Mr Bhatia will come up for hearing.

Though the court came down heavily on the Banerjee Committee for making its report public, it expunged the observations made by Justice M R Shah about the Committee over-reaching the process of law by submitting its final report.

As there was no interim stay on its submitting the report, the Committee was not in the wrong, the court said.

About the Railways' contention that Mr Bhatia had no locus standi to file a petition, the court said there was a strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioner.

The Railways had on March 9 questioned the locus standi of the petitioner in raising objections to the setting up of the high-level Committee who was conducting a probe, as it directly did not concern him who was conducting the probe.

Bhatia, in his petition, had questioned the setting up of the panel after two-and-a-half years when the state government already had appointed a Commission of inquiry and alleged that it could prejudice the trial.

UNI

Related Story