HC concerned over denial of justice due to lack of presiding officer
The post at Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow, has been vacant for last two years
LUCKNOW : The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has expressed concern over undue delay in delivery of justice to a petitioner due to non-appointment of presiding officer of Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow, for the last two years.
A writ petition has been filed before the high court seeking directive to the state government to appoint the presiding officer of Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow, so that his case pending before the tribunal for the last two years can be decided.
A division bench of Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava on September 15 said, “It is needless to say that to have access to justice is one of the most fundamental aspects of rights conferred upon the citizenry of this country.”
“And there cannot be more ironical a situation where a person is being denied the said right of having access to justice only on account of the forum concerned (in this case the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal at Lucknow), remaining unmanned for the reason that at least for last two years appointment of the Presiding Officer has not been/could not be made,” the court said.
On September 3 this year, the high court had directed for appearance of additional chief secretary (appointment) and principal secretary (law and legal remembrance) to assist the court. Both of them were present in court during hearing of case on September 15.
The officials apprised the court that the state government had decided to not accept the name of the officer as resolved by the administrative committee of the high court for being appointed as the presiding officer of the tribunal.
“The only reason disclosed before the court today for not agreeing to appoint the officer as resolved by the Administrative Committee of this Court is that the state government now intends to appoint an officer of the rank of the District Judge to man the tribunal,” said the court. The court referred to section 373 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, which deals with the appointment of presiding officer of the tribunal.
The court observed that subsection 2 of section 373 of the Act states that the member of the Tribunal (Nagar Mahapalika) shall be a civil judicial officer not below the rank of district judge. The word ‘District Judge’, as has been defined under section 2(18) of the Act, includes an additional district judge as well.
Additional advocate general, who was representing the state government, prayed for four weeks’ time to revisit the entire issue one more time.
On this, the court granted time and listed the case for hearing on October 19 and observed: “We, however, express our solemn hope and trust in the State Government that the matter shall be revisited in accordance with law and also taking into account the observations made herein.”
ON SEPTEMBER 3 THIS YEAR, THE HIGH COURT HAD DIRECTED FOR APPEARANCE OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (APPOINTMENT) AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (LAW AND LEGAL REMEMBRANCE) TO ASSIST THE COURT.
Court’s observation
Such resolutions or decisions of the Administrative Committee of this Court are, thus, to be given due weightage by virtue of committee’s complexion itself. In the instant case, it is understandable that the recommendation made by the court in respect of the officer to be appointed as Presiding Officer of the Tribunal could be turned down by the State Government only if there are very strong reasons for doing that, such as availability of some material with the State Government in the form of complaints or reports or intelligence reports reflecting upon the work, conduct, nature, character and antecedents of the officer recommended for appointment.
However, in absence of any such material the decision or resolution of the Administrative Committee is to be given due regard. The officers present today have very fairly stated that there is no such input available against the officer who has been recommended for appointment.