(Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ.)
PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. ______________________________ Petitioner;
v.
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited and Others _____________ Respondent(s).
Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 2419/2019, decided on February 17, 2020
IA No. 152015/2019-Ex-Parte Stay, Chairman BCI Represented by Mr. S.N. Bhat and the President Orissa High Court Bar Assoc. Represented by Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Adv., SIBO Sankar Mishra, Standing Council for the Orissa.
IA No. 152015/2019 – Ex-Parte Stay
Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 2419/2019; IA No. 152015/2019; and IA No. 152015/2019
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Learned senior counsel appears for the Central Action Committee, All Bar Associations of Western Odisha and assures this Court that all the District Bar Asociations will resume the work today itself. He submits that the larger aspect may be considered after the work is resumed. We agree with this course of action.
2. The affidavit filed in Court is taken on record.
3. The District Judges of the different districts in Orissa will submit a report through the counsel for the High Court certifying that the work has been resumed in all aspects.
4. Learned Attorney General has placed before us a chart of the average number of days taken by different authorities in the appointment process in 2019. Our take away from the same is that much time is taken and whether initially endeavour should be if the time period can be compressed. We also put to learned Attorney General whether, considering the time period being taken, the High Courts should make recommendations more in advance but then as Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel submits, we are at a stage where pending vacancies are not being recommended much less future vacancies for six months or more.
5. We may note that our confidence in learned Attorney General to sort out the problem in getting the names cleared has been justified.
6. There is an important aspect which the learned Attorney General emphasises by referring to a chart Annexure-III submitted before us showing the inordinate delays in making recommendation to fill vancancies by the High Courts. The situation in some of the High Court is more alarming than the others but it is no better than the other including the court in the capital of the country. Needless to emphasise that Chief Justices of High Courts must make endeavours to recommend the names against the vacancies as early as possible even if they are not made at one go.
7. We may also note that there appears to be some hesitation in some courts to recomend the names without the earlier list being cleared. We understand that there is no such impediment and it should be a continuing process of recommending the names without waiting for the result of the earlier recommendations till all recommendations are made. Otherwise, the time period to process names is such that by the time appointments takes place, another set of vacancies arise which brings the problem of vacancies to square one.
8. Learned Attorney General endeavoured to perusade us that may be notice is required to be issued to each of the High Courts. We desist from doing so at present but call upon the Registrars of the different High Courts to send to us the vacancy position as on date, when did they arise and number of vacancies likely to arise in the next six months explaining as to what is the time period within which one can expect recommendations to be made. We say so because in all the High Courts of the country, as per Annexure-III, no recommendations have been made to 199 posts of judges out of about 396 vacancies.
9. A copy of the order be sent to the Registrars of the different High Courts and we expect response to be filed within four weeks.
10. We may take note of the fact, as noticed earlier, that the large number of recommendations turned down by the Supreme Court Collegium itself as submitted by learned Attorney General requires a reflection on this issue as to why the Collegiums are not on the same page.
11. We are sanguine that the learned Attorney General will continue the endeavour to get the names cleared as quickly as possible.
12. List on 23rd March, 2020.
Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 2419/2019
PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd ________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited & Ors ________________ Respondent(s)
(IA No. 152015/2019-EX-PARTE STAY, CHAIRMAN BCI REPRESENTED BY MR. S.N. BHAT AND THE PRESIDENT ORISSA HIGH COURT BAR ASSOC. REPRESENTED BY MR. KEDAR NATH TRIPATHY, ADV., SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, STANDING COUNCIL FOR THE ORISSA.
IA No. 152015/2019 – EX-PARTE STAY)
Date : 17-02-2020 This matter was called on for hearing today.
(Before Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kaushik Poddar, AOR
Mr. Gautam Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. K.K. Venugopal, AG
Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Talwar, Adv.
For Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
For Central Mr. Ashok Panda, Sr. Adv.
Action Committee Ms. Renuka Sahu, Adv.
Mr. Sureshar Pradhan, Adv.
Mr. Dushmanta Ku. Naik, Adv.
Mr. Bijitendriya Pradhan, Adv.
Mr. Sagar Pradhan, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Arora, Adv.
Ms. Reena Rao, Adv.
Ms. Prerna Kumari, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Anurag, AOR
Mr. Tejaswi Ku. Pradhan, Adv.
Mr. Satyabrata Panda, Adv.
Mr. Manoranjan Paikaray, Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha Purushotham, Adv.
Mr. Abeer Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.
For High Court Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR of Odisha
Mr. Niranjan Sahu, Adv.
Mr. V.K. Mishra, Adv.
For State of Odisha
Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR
Mr. S. Debabrata Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Adv.
For Orissa High Dr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Court Bar Asscn.
For Orissa Bar Mr. Manas Mohapatra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Lalitendu Mohapatra, Adv.
For M/s. Aura & Co., AOR
For Patna High Ms. Priya Hingorani, Sr. Adv.
Court Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
13. Learned senior counsel appears for the Central Action Committee of the Orissa State Bar Council and assures this Court that all the District Bar Councils will resume the work today itself. He submits that the larger aspect may be considered after the work is resumed. We agree with this course of action.
14. The affidavit filed in Court is taken on record.
15. The District Judges of the different districts in Orissa will submit a report through the counsel for the High Court certifying that the work has been resumed in all aspects.
16. Learned Attorney General has placed before us a chart of the average number of days taken by different authorities in the appointment process in 2019. Our take away from the same is that much time is taken and whether initially endeavour should be if the time period can be compressed. We also put to learned Attorney General whether, considering the time period being taken, the High Courts should make recommendations more in advance but then as Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel submits, we are at a stage where pending vacancies are not being recommended much less future vacancies for six months or more.
17. We may note that our confidence in learned Attorney General to sort out the problem in getting the names cleared has been justified.
18. There is an important aspect which the learned Attorney General emphasises by referring to a chart Annexure-III submitted before us showing the inordinate delays in making recommendation to fill vancancies by the High Courts. The situation in some of the High Court is more alarming than the others but it is no better than the other including the court in the capital of the country. Needless to emphasise that Chief Justices of High Courts must make endeavours to recommend the names against the vacancies as early as possible even if they are not made at one go.
19. We may also note that there appears to be some hesitation in some courts to recomend the names without the earlier list being cleared. We understand that there is no such impediment and it should be a continuing process of recommending the names without waiting for the result of the earlier recommendations till all recommendations are made. Otherwise, the time period to process names is such that by the time appointments takes place, another set of vacancies arise which brings the problem of vacancies to square one.
20. Learned Attorney General endeavoured to perusade us that may be notice is required to be issued to each of the High Courts. We desist from doing so at present but call upon the Registrars of the different High Courts to send to us the vacancy position as on date, when did they arise and number of vacancies likely to arise in the next six months explaining as to what is the time period within which one can expect recommendations to be made. We say so because in all the High Courts of the country, as per Annexure-III, no recommendations have been made to 199 posts of judges out of about 396 vacancies.
21. A copy of the order be sent to the Registrars of the different High Courts and we expect response to be filed within four weeks.
22. We may take note of the fact, as noticed earlier, that the large number of recommendations turned down by the Supreme Court Collegium itself as submitted by learned Attorney General requires a reflection on this issue as to why the Collegiums are not on the same page.
23. We are sanguine that the learned Attorney General will continue the endeavour to get the names cleared as quickly as possible.
24. List on 23rd March, 2020.
———
