IN-HOUSE PROCEDURE | HC closes writ petition, appeal as ‘non-maintainable’

Srinagar, Oct 20: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Friday closed as “not maintainable” a petition by a senior advocate against a sitting judge, seeking inquiry against him following the In-house Procedure, 1999.

A full court comprising Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh, Justice Tashi Rabstan, and Justice Sanjeev Kumar closed the petition filed by senior advocate Abdul Majid Dar seeking inquiry against Justice Javed Iqbal Wani following the in-house procedure.

In his plea, Dar had contended that on August 23 he was allegedly “summarily sentenced by the judge to judicial custody until 5:30 pm for criminal contempt of court and he was allegedly detained in court by Police and CRPF for 45-50 minutes”.

“It appears that before filing the present writ petition on September 22, 2023, the petitioner had filed a complaint against the judge before the Chief Justice on September 21, 2023,” the full court said. “The petitioner without waiting for the outcome of the said complaint filed the present writ petition on the very next day.”

“We think that this writ petition is not maintainable and is, as such, closed as not maintainable,” the full court said.

Meanwhile, a full court comprising Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh, Justice Tashi Rabstan, and Justice Sanjeev Kumar closed a letters patent appeal filed by Dar against the order dated August 23, 2023, passed by the single judge in WP(C) 2207/2023.

The senior advocate had also filed an appeal against the order passed against him on August 23.

“Without following due process, and adherence to the Contempt of Court Act or established procedures, the petitioner was summarily sentenced to judicial custody until 5:30 pm. The episode lasted about 45 to 50 minutes,” the senior lawyer said in his plea.

“As we are of the view that the appeal is not maintainable for the reason that learned single judge has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it under Article 215 of the Constitution of India or Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by punishing the appellant,” the full court said.

However, the full court held that the single judge had made some adverse observations in the order against the appellant which ought not to have been made without providing sufficient opportunity to hear him which, it said, was not done in the present case.

“Accordingly, we close this appeal by expunging all the adverse observations made in the impugned order against the appellant,” the court said.