Punjab and Haryana HC Judges pulled up by SC

New Delhi, Sep 9 (UNI) The Supreme Court has pulled up Punjab and Haryana High Court and subordinate courts in Haryana severely for dealing with the appeals in a cavalier manner which is sufficient to bring discredit to the system itself.

Justice P K Balasubramayan in his separate judgement while allowing appeal of Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation observed ''we must say with regret that the second appellate court without application of mind-in fact it pains me to record out of my experience in the court for three years, that the particular High Court is disposing of the second appeal in such a cavalier manner that nothing else is needed to bring the discredit to the system itself.'' The Judge further directed ''therefore this was a case where the document produced under Order 41, Rule 27 of the court was required to enable the High Court to pronounce the judgement more satisfactory to its conscience, constituting other sufficient causes within the meaning of Order 41 Rule 27 of the code for production of additional evidence.

Before leaving this case I think it necessary to issue a direction and to make an observation. The direction is to the appellant to initiate action against those officers who were dealing with the cancellation of the allotment and taking possession of the property, and more particularly against those who were incharge of the litigation and who failed to produce vital documents issued on behalf of the plaintiff.

It is absolutely necessary to take such action in the interest of the appellant, the citizens and the State since it should not be forgotten that the appellant is a trustee of public property and is expected to deal with it as a trustee with all care and caution.The second is to exhort the trial courts, the first appellate court and the second appellate court in the State to show better application of mind while deciding a lis, keeping in mind that what they are performing is a divine function that is onerous and at the same time challenging.

I am making these observations regarding the court in the concerned state since for the last three years I have been noticing with regret the lack of application in many a case that had come before the court.'' The presiding Judge of the bench Justice Tarun Chatterjee, however, dismissed the appeal of HSIDC(Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation).

The bench, comprising Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice P K Balasubramanyan, in view of the differences of opinion between the judges referred the case to a larger bench for deciding the controversy involved.

M/S Cork Manufacturing Company was alloted a plot measuring 1000 sq mt by HSIDC on December 24, 1987. The plot was resumed by HSIDC forfailing to fulfill the condition of allotment and was realloted to M/S Insulation And Electrical Products Pvt Ltd New Delhi on April 2, 1992. The allotment to the second allottee was also cancelled for similar reasons on January 6, 1994. M/S Cork Manufacturing Company filed a suit against cancellation of allotment and the suit was decreed. The appeal of HSIDC was dismissed by the first appellate court and the State High Court.

HSIDC challenged the High Court judgement on January 20, 2006.

UNI