news details |
|
|
| Court summons CS on Dec 18 to explain why SAC is headless | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 11: Despite wide public concern as Jammu and Kashmir government summarily fails to revive the State Accountability Commission by appointment of its Chairperson, the High Court has asked for personal appearance of the Chief Secretary on December 18. These orders of have come after the High Court found Chief Secretary’s compliance report, to its earlier order of November 12, on the delay in appointment of transparency watchdog chief.
Advocate General MI Qadri pleaded before the court for filing a supplementary affidavit before personal appearance of the Chief Secretary but Justice Virender Singh declined to accept the plea. The case has been listed for hearing on December 18.
In a petition filed by one Iftikhar Hussain Salaria, arraying the Chief Secretary as respondent number one, the High Court had asked the Chief Secretary on November 12 to file compliance report. The counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the court that the compliance report was not in terms with the order passed by the court. The operative part of the November 12 order read as “It transpires on a plain reading of the proviso that the appointment of a member presupposes satisfaction of the Governor to the effect that such appointment is necessary or expedient in public interest but such satisfaction is not needed in respect of a chairperson of the commission, yet it is unmanned for last months together. Considering the matter in its right prospective, instead of putting the respondent Chief Secretary on notice to explain the inaction, it would be appropriate the to direct the state to take steps for appointment of the Chairperson (State Accountability Commissioner) without any further delay, unless state contemplates winding-up the commission. Legal impediment, if any, the respondent state shall be at liberty to bring it to the notice of Court on the next date. No interim direction possible for appointment of the members as this stage in view of the mandate of proviso to Rule 4”.
It is stated in the compliance report section 4 of J&K Accountability Act provides the procedure to be followed for the appointment of chairperson and members of the commission. Virtually, the entire section is reproduced in the para of the report submitted by the Chief Secretary, which in view of the Court was not at all required. Chief Secretary then stated that on April 13, 2009 a meeting of the committee was held but the proceedings remained inconclusive in view of the process of parliamentary elections and on the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer. In the compliance report it is state “that it further submitted that another meeting of the committee on the subject was held on November 24, 2009 in which the Committee made its recommendations only for appointment of two members of the commission, which have accordingly been submitted to the Governor on November 26, 2009 for approval and issuance of necessary warrants as envisaged under section 4 of J&K Accountability Commission Act”. According to the Chief Secretary the approval of recommendation for appointment of the two members of the Commission is presently before the Governor of J&K State.
Justice Virender Singh after hearing both the sides observed that order dated November 12, 2009 mandates the Govt to appoint the chairperson of the accountability commission, observing further that appointment of members pre-supposes satisfaction of the Governor but the stand taken by respondent Chief Secretary is that the committee has made recommendations for appointment of only two members of the commission. What was required of the state in terms of the aforesaid order is not done. Therefore, the compliance report submitted by the Chief Secretary is not in terms of the order dated November 12, 2009. Court is left with no option except observing that the Chief Secretary shall appear in person on the next date to explain stance of the state. Ordered accordingly,. List again on December 18, 2009, at this stage Advocate General Mr. MI Qadiri stated that before appearance of the Chief Secretary in person he may be given another opportunity to file his supplementary affidavit to show his stance, Court declined this request of the Advocate General.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
