All review petitions were to be heard by the same judge who passed the order, the bench said
Madras high court
Chennai: The Madras high court has directed the state government to make necessary arrangements for upgrading video conferencing facility within three months, to facilitate judges sitting at a different bench (either the principal seat or Madurai bench), who passed the original order, to hear review applications. Disposing of a public interest litigation from advocate Vasanthakumar Vengadessane, a division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, in its order said, “We understand that the video conferencing facility is available, but possibly requires upgradation and arrangement in a manner, where urgent directions are required, may be addressed in this manner.”
The bench said the petitioner has filed the PIL, faced with the situation where a review application had been placed before a bench of the court, who had not passed the original order, even when the judges, party to the earlier orders, were available to assign the matter, albeit at the principal seat, when the matter pertains to the Madurai bench. It was the say of the petitioner that in view of the provisions of order 47 rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all review petitions were to be heard by the same judge who passed the order, the bench said.
It further said a reading of the provision shows that if a single judge or a bench pass an order and if the judges continue to hold office the matter must be placed before that judge or judges unless they were not precluded by absence or otherwise for a period of six months after the application for review was filed. Also, the judges would have to be attached to the court.
The circumstances under which a different division bench of Madurai came to examine the review application was on account of the fact that both the earlier judges, when the review application was filed, were attached to this court and available, but at the principal seat and not the Madurai bench. As per the roster practice, judges normally go for a tenure of three months to Madurai bench unless they were permanently assigned to the Madurai bench. Thus, the judges would be available but at a different bench, the directive of the bench said. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the bench said in its view the issue was no more res integra (an entirely new or untouched matter) and that the course of action to be followed in such a situation has to be in conformity with the observations made by the apex court. In fact, it has been observed that the practical difficulties, if any, can really be obliterated with the technological innovations now available. The petitioner has also prayed that video conferencing facility should be made available and be utilised where necessary for posting such review applications.
“Insofar as this prayer is concerned, especially keeping in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the state government should make necessary arrangements and complete the process within three months, in the larger interest of the litigating public,” the bench said.
( Source : deccan chronicle )
Next Story
