A K M HASSAMANUZAMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 23rd February, 1982 at about 4.08 P.M. on my rising from the Court, the Registrar, Appellate Side of this Court placed before me the following communications: - Message received from Mr. Subba Rao, Registrar (Judicial), Supreme Court of India at 3.40 P.M. over 'Phone'. Writ petition challenging the announcement of final Electoral Roll on March, 1982 filed by Mr. A. K. M. Hassamanuzaman & Ors. the Supreme Court requests the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court to request the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji to take up the above writ petition at 10.30 A.M. on 24th February, 1982. He shall not allow any request for adjournment in respect of this matter and complete hearing before Thursday evening and pass orders immediately either reasoned order or the result. If a reasoned order is made, a plain copy may be handed over to the Counsel for being produced before Supreme Court on Friday morning and the Special Leave Petition filed in this matter before the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 12 will be taken up on Friday for further hearing. Sd/- K. Mukherjee, Registrar, A.S. 23.2.82?

(2.) I direct that that the original be kept on the record of this matter. At above 8 P.M. on that day, I was communicated at my residence the following: - We heard this matter for some few hours, Mr. Venugoal for petitioners and Dr. Chitale for Election Commission concluded their arguments. Mr. S. S. Ray, learned Counsel for the respondents who are some of the original petitioners and also some of the respondents, was being heard, when we found that after Rule Nisi was issued by the learned Judge and ex parte ad interim stay was granted, on the motion made by the parties represented by Mr. Venugopal they were added and they requested by an application to vacate the interim stay and the learned Judge proceeded to hear the matter as to whether the stay should be confirmed or vacated or what interim order is necessary till the disposal of the petition. We were informed that this hearing proceeded upto some time when the learned Advocate General, who appeared on behalf of the Election Commission and authorities under the Election Commission was asked about some documents. The Court called for some documents from the Election Commission and the learned Advocate General promised to enquire whether he would be able to produce the documents. At that stage the learned Judge adjourned the matter to Thursday i.e., on 25.2.82 for further hearing of the matter. Thereafter the present petition was moved for obtaining Special Leave under Article 136 against the ex parte interim stay order and also against the order dated February 19, 1982. In view of the fact that the learned Judge is seized of the matter and more or so in view of the fact that this Court would be loathe to interfere, particularly when the matter is part heard before the Court and in view of the comity amongst judicial functionaries we consider, consistent with the dignity of judicial process, that the learned Judge should complete the hearing going on before him. We are, however, keen that this hearing and the order consequent upon the hearing must be pronounced latest on 25.2.1982 and the learned Judge completes the hearing and pronounces and order on that day. It is requested that the writ petition should be placed on Board of the learned Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji) on Wednesday, 24th February, 1982 and shall be heard and hearing completed and order pronounced before the expiry of Thursday, 25th February, 1982. If a reasoned order is made even an uncertified copy or the minutes of the order signed by the learned Judge may be produced before this Court. This matter stands adjourned to Friday, February 25, 1982 to be placed on Board at 10.30 A.M. The learned Judge should proceed to hear the matter without considering any direction about production of the documents by the Election Commission or by any parties as that part of the order is stayed at the instance of Election Commission. The parties are precluded from making any request for adjournment. COURT MASTER. Supreme Court also directed that besides communication from Registrar of Supreme Court to Registrar of Calcutta High Court regarding above direction should be communicated to High Court through Telex to Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal from Election Commission for purpose of bringing contents of above direction to notice of Registrar of High Court listing the case before the Judge on Wednesday, 24th February, 1982. Please contact Registrar and if necessary, Advocate General of West Bengal immediately to enable Judge to take action as per direction of Supreme Court before close of Court today so that case is listed for tomorrow and proceeded with according to direction till Thursday and final orders passed on the 24th February, 1982 and case posted before the Supreme Court for further direction on the 25th February, 1982. Request Registrar to wait till Telex is handed over to him so that follow up action is directed by Supreme Court can be taken today itself. Secretary, Election Commission of India.? Thereafter, I was shown in the Court on 24th February, 1982 a certified copy of the order of the Supreme Court which was communicated to the Registrar, Appellate Side, which reads as follows: - ?We heard this matter for some few hours. Mr. Venugopal for petitioners and Dr. Chitale for Election Commission concluded their arguments. Mr. S. S. Ray, learned Counsel for the respondents, who are some of the original petitioners and also some of the respondents, was being heard, when we found that after Rule Nisi was issued by the learned Judge and ex parte ad interim stay was granted, on the motion made by the parties represented by Mr. Venugopal they were added and they requested by an application to vacate the interim stay and the learned Judge proceeded to hear the matter as to whether the stay should be confirmed or vacated or what interim order is necessary till the disposal of the petition. We were informed that this hearing proceeded upto some time when the learned Advocate General who appeared on behalf of the Election Commission and authorities under the Election Commission was asked about some documents. The Court called for some documents from the Election Commission and the learned Advocate General promised to enquire whether he would be able to produce the documents. At that stage the learned Judge adjourned the matter to Thursday i.e., on 25.2.1982 for further hearing of the matter. Thereafter the present petition was moved for obtaining special leave under order and also against the order dated February 19, 1982. In view of the fact that the learned Judge is seized of the matter and more so in view of the fact that this Court would be loathe to interfere particularly when the matter is part heard before the Court and in view of the comity amongst judicial functionaries, we consider, consistent with the dignity of judicial functionaries, we consider, consistent with the dignity of judicial process, that the learned Judge should complete the hearing going on before him. We are, however, kept that this hearing and the order consequent upon the hearing must be pronounced latest on 25.2.1982 and the learned Judge completes the hearing and pronounces an order on that day. It is requested that the writ petition shall be placed on Board of the learned Judge (Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji) on Wednesday, 24th February,1982 and shall be heard and hearing completed and order pronounced before the expiry of Thursday, 25th February, 1982. If a reasoned order is made even an uncertified copy of the minutes of the order signed by the learned Judge may be produced before this Court. This matter stands adjourned proceed to hear the matter without considering any direction about production of the documents by the Election Commission or by parties as that part of the order is stayed at the instance of Election Commission. The parties are precluded from making any request for adjournment. Sd/- COURT MASTER

(3.) I direct that the original Telex Message from the Election Commission as well as the certified copy be kept in the record of this matter. A bare reading of the three different communications would indicate the difference in the communication and some apparent inconsistencies.