HARSI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) IN this writ petition, there is a cry of the consumer litigants against the present judicial system, Mr. Pathak learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ad interim stay order was issued against the transfer in the month of July, 1988. He further submits that about 45 adjournments have been granted and the ad interim injunction granted in July, 1988, still continues. It is really a problem which compels us to see how to save the system from collapsing having the effective control on the subordinate judiciary. Mr. Pathak submits that a vigilance enquiry has already been conducted and is still going on. He further submits that it is nothing but an eye wash. He submits that if the transfer orders are stayed for years together and are not decided then it is a case of usurping the power of executive in the garb of passing a temporary injunction. IN the guarded language he wants to convey that there should be some check on the malafide action of the judiciary and arbitrary action should be dealt with iron hand to see that the confidence of the consumer litigants increases in the judiciary and the downward trend may be checked.

(3.) A copy of this order be sent to the Presiding Officer and the learned District Judge and a copy of this order be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice.