CHANDRA NARAIN TRIPATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TO start with, it may be stated that to this Court, the prayers as contained in the writ petition, do not appear to be very palatable. The petitioner Chandra Narain Tripathi is a practising lawyer of this Court and has filed this writ petition praying that it may be treated as pro bono public. It contains five prayers and two have been added by an amendment application which has been allowed. Sri Ashok Mehta may add the two reliefs after the relief No. 5 as relief Nos. 6 and 7. The newly added relief related to the 'Note' appearing in the Notification dated 29th January, 1997, a copy of which has already been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Relief No. 7 makes a request that an appointment of Committee may be directed to investigate, enquire and find out the persons who conspired in the deception of altering "the Rule 20".

(2.) THE initial relief No. 1 seeks a mandamus calling upon the Honourable the Chief Justice to take immediate deterrent action against the guilty officials of the Registry, placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench dated 17.12.1996 in Writ Petition No. 4449 of 1996, Kalyan Chandra Srivastava v. Honourable Chief Justice and others, (already reported in 1997 (1) AWC 360). Relief No. 2 is that a mandamus should be issued requesting the Honourable the Chief Justice to amend, modify and enlarge the terms of reference of the enquiry Committee as appointed by the Honourable the Chief Justice so as to include the matter of deception, fraud etc. Relief 4 appears to be connected with the aforesaid prayers and it requires a writ of certiorari calling for the record relating to the said amendment in the Rule 20 of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 of the Court. Relief No. 5 is the normal one which is always pleaded in writ petitions, i.e., any other writ, order or direction to which the petitioner may be found entitled, may be granted. At the end it may be mentioned that relief No. 3 is containing the prayer that Registrar of this Court who has been impleaded by name as opposite party No. 3, be not appointed as a Judge of this Court by Union of India which has been impleaded as opposite party No. 1.

(3.) THE argument of Sri Jain is two-fold. To start with the first it is said that Honourable the Chief Justice has not either followed the directions of the Division Bench or did not comply with the directions contained in the judgment; second that the Registrar knowingly appended a 'note' in the Notification dated 29.1.1997 which reads as under :