Single bench’s pre-Diwali relief to Amritsar cracker traders irks High Court

Amritsar traders, through advocate Jaswal, during the Deepawali vacation had approached the High Court against the district administration’s October 14 order cancelling the 39 licences in view of the division bench directions. (File Photo)

A single bench order permitting 39 persons from Amritsar to sell crackers in the district in contravention of the division bench order restricting the issuance of licences to 20 per cent of the previous year became a major topic of discussion during the resumed hearing of the case regarding air quality in the region in the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday. The division bench of Justices Ajay Kumar Mittal and Amit Rawal asked the counsel representing one of the 39 traders in the case to file an affidavit as to how his petition seeking the relief for traders came to be listed before the single bench and asked the amicus curiae to address the court on the matter of judicial discipline during the next hearing. The single judge bench had passed its order on October 17.

“This is gravely subversive of the judicial discipline. I cannot imagine a clear case of wilful contempt by the single bench of the division bench,” said the amicus and Senior Advocate Anupam Gupta while addressing the bench. “We would like you to address on judicial discipline also,” observed the division bench. To this, Gupta remarked, “This should not happen again”. “Absolutely,” the court observed. The division bench, while taking strong note of the single bench order, asked the traders’ counsel B S Jaswal that how the order was passed and whether he had misled the single judge while assisting in the matter.

“I had mentioned right on the index of the petition that the case should be listed before the division bench, but I was called by the registry and asked to delete it and the case was then listed before the single bench,” Jaswal informed the division bench. The division, while addressing the counsel, observed, “who is the registry to call” and asked him to submit an affidavit on his oral submission. Gupta said, “Registry is in the contempt of the court. Learned Single Judge is also in the contempt of the court.”

The question of “judicial discipline” revolves around the two orders passed by the division bench and the single bench of Justice Rajbir Sehrawat — who was elevated as an Additional Judge of the High Court on July 10. The division bench in a case on the air quality in the region ahead of Diwali on October 13 ordered, “The Union Territory, Chandigarh, the States of Punjab and Haryana shall be entitled to issue temporary licences up to 20 per cent of the total number of temporary licences issued in the previous year i.e in 2016.”

While the division bench in the order also “clarified” that any temporary licence already issued “shall be inoperative” and the authorities will invite fresh applications and the grant of licences will be subject to the draw of lots, the single bench, in its order dated October 17, said,” Keeping in view the fact that the number of licences in Amritsar has been restricted to unreasonably low number by interpreting the order passed by the division bench of this Court, the operation of the impugned order (Annexure P-5) qua all the 39 persons mentioned in the order shall remain stayed. Needless to say that this would imply that all the 39 persons shall be permitted to sell the crackers as per the terms and conditions of the licences which were issued to them but which has now cancelled.”

Amritsar traders, through advocate Jaswal, during the Deepawali vacation had approached the High Court against the district administration’s October 14 order cancelling the 39 licences in view of the division bench directions. They had told the court that only 10 licences had been granted in the district after the draw of lots, but Amritsar has the population of more than 15 lakh.