MUNSHI RAM Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated May 1, 1997 passed in CMP (1A- 11/97). However, lately, it was revived and taken on board for disposal on merits and, in terms of order dated 15th December, 2003, notices were issued to all concerned, including the petitioner, Jammu Development Authority, though not figuring in the array of respondents, was also directed to be impleaded as party, respondent No. 1, in the petition, being a necessary party. The circumstances and facts, which led to the reviving of the petition and the subsequent proceedings in the matter, may briefly be stated.

(2.) Certain complaints were received in the Chief Justice' Secretariat, alleging gross and rampant violation of various statutory laws enacted by the State for planned development of the Jammu city. The complainants lamented inaction and indifference of the authorities saddled with responsibility to ensure compliance with laws regulating building activities and adherence to laws like the Municipal Act, Development Act and Building Operations Control Act etc. Clout at different levels was alleged to have resulted in throwing to winds the established norms and laws otherwise meant for public good. One such complaint dated 26th May, 2003 was addressed to the Acting Chief Justice (one of us - V. K. Jhanji) by a forum named in the complaint as "Judiciary Protection Forum" signed by some Vijay Singh, Secretary of the Forum. It is not borne out from the complaint whether the forum is registered or not. The identity of the complainant is not fully disclosed in the letter. We are conscious that complaints or petitions, which do not identify fully the makers thereof, cannot be acted upon on the Judicial side. Nevertheless, the complaint contained certain verifiable facts and allegations directly concerning this Court. Certain reports were also published in local English weekly. Journey Line, in its issue No. 45 released in November, 2003, supported by succinct material on the same subject, with a reflection of unpleasant events, bearing an inkling of diminishing public confidence in this highest temple of justice in the State. The complaint and the newspaper report are on the file. To ascertain the facts, records of certain case files, including the record of writ petition, OWP No. 25/97, were called for perusal from the Registry through Registrar General of the Court. The record of the writ petition as also that of a civil revision was reported to be not traceable in the record room of the Court. Registrar General was directed to enquire into the matter and make efforts to trace out the records. The record keeper produced a chit stating that the record of these case files had been taken by the then Deputy Registrar Judicial in September, 1999. Ultimately, the records of the writ petition along with the record of civil revision petition No. 150 of 1996 titled 'Harbans Lal v. Pawan Kumar' were deposited in the record room by the then Deputy Registrar Judicial of the Court, namely, Shri Kartar Singh, presently Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu. It may be relevant to mention here that respondent No. 3 in the aforesaid civil revision is Munshi Ram, the same person who is petitioner in the writ petition. OWP No. 25/1997 - a factor assuming importance in view of the facts that have emerged.

(3.) An explanation was sought from Shri Kartar Singh. In reply dated 17th November, 2003, he stated that he never obtained the record of these files (writ petition and civil revision) from the record room and that the same were handed over to him by Shri Baldev Raj Salgotra, Private Secretary to one of the sitting Judges of this Court (Shri Baldev Raj Salgotra actually happens to be a senior stenographer, not private secretary). In his explanation dated 25th November, 2003, Shri Baldev Raj Salgotra, senior stenographer, inter alia, stated that in the month of September, 2003, one file was given to him by the Hon'ble Judge for handing over the same to Shri Kartar Singh and that he "carried out the orders of his Lordship", the same day.