Kolkata: The decision of the Central Administrative Court, transferred former Bandyopadhyay Bengal Benggala Headpetition against the center of the Kolkata bench to Delhi, “surprisingly judicial conscience …
and pose a threat to the federal structure (state)”, Calcutta High.
The court said on Friday.
Division of Judge Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Rabindranath Samanta transferred the case back to the kolkata cat bench and asked him to hear the case “fast”, called the cat’s transfer ordered an effort to pay “obedience to dictate”.
“The whole mode of operandi was adopted by the Union of India smelled of Fides Mala.
It is unfortunate that the cat’s main bench maintains efforts (they) efforts, paying respect for the Indian Union Dictate,” said 18 pages said, emphasizing that the Supreme Court and various high courts had been repeated Times said the trade union government could not be treated as “preferred litigants”.
“Instead, the responsibility for maintaining justice and serving the cause of justice is on a much higher base,” the command added.
Cat transfer orders “leave a bad taste in the mouth because of the way the operation of the quasi-judicial authority (if not justice) and also pose a threat to the federal structure as imagined by the constitutional maker”, the bench is said.
The Central Department of Personnel and Training initiated the process of Bandyopadhay in June after the political controversy over a meeting of PM Narendra Modi reviews in the Yaas cycle in Kalaikunda, about 130 km from Kolkata.
Bandyopadhyay responded, explaining the order of events, after the center that founded the panel to investigate the allegations of it.
Bandyopadhyay moved the cat’s kolkata bench against this but this case was transferred to Delhi before one hearing here.
Bandyopadhyay then moved Calcutta HC against this transfer.
The HC Division bench said on Friday that “the FULL is valued but the excess enthusiasm for serving the Fiat of the government, both the center or country, no” and found in orders of the cat “hasty from bench bench to serve for the Urgency of Pseudo the United States”.
It also questioned the “unprecedented anxiety” to complete the investigation before the bandyopadhyay case was taken by Kolkata Bench.
The bandyopadhyay petition pushed three questions, HC said: Has that (HC) could hear the order passed by the school principal based in Delhi; Whether Delhi cat bench has surpassed its strength in acting in the case filed in Kolkata; And whether the transfer of cases from Kolkata to Delhi is justified.
The incident that caused all problems to occur in Bengal on May 28, HC said, adding that many of the following events (including the Banerjee Mamata Banerjee Bengal Letter to PM Modi) came from Kolkata.
It gives Calcutta HC “territorial jurisdiction”, said bench.
The judges also noted that Bandyopadhyay, Kolkata residents, were given less than 24 hours to respond to transfer notice.
“Extreme safety of the cat bench did not stop there, but then heard and waste all transfer petitions the next day,” HC said, adding that bandyopadhyay was not given “a reasonable time to come with a comprehensive objection, argument, and appropriate quote”.
The judges then questioned how Delhi’s cat bench could be “pre-judge” which most witnesses from Delhi, which pushed the basis of the transfer order.
“Bandyopadhyay accused the realcitrance on May 28, 2021, taking place in the territorial jurisdiction of the cat’s kolkata bench and the accusation of it (following) communication from Bengal CM, which can also be a potentially important part.
Other Witnesses, if any, will be available in Kalaikunda In Bengal and not in New Delhi, “the bench noted, said that the cat ordered” not only violated Bandyopadhyay’s legal rights “but also fundamental rights” equality before law “.
Fox & Mandal, Kolkata, Mitra Debanjan Mandal, who represents Bandyopadhyay, declined to comment in detail on the HC decision.
“We hope that the judicial and quasi-judicial process will lead to justice,” he said.
Cent orders in collapse ‘judicial shocks conscience’: HC
