The Rajasthan High Court, operating as a single bench with an urgent focus, recently dealt with a petition that had been submitted without proper authorization, as indicated by the revelation of its listing.

Despite this, the court has taken a stringent stance on the matter. Notably, a directive from the private secretary was found on the final page of the file, instructing the signing and sealing of the document in an envelope. The court has mandated presenting the sealed file before the judge in cases deemed suitable. Furthermore, officials tasked with investigations have been directed to take appropriate actions against employees as necessary.

On Thursday, Justice Dinesh Mehta presided over proceedings on a single bench. As the deadline approached, a senior advocate, along with their associates, made a request in the supplementary cause list to hear a case that had been listed but could not be addressed earlier due to time constraints.

The bench, taking into account the imminent expiration date, initially refused to consider the case. However, instructions were later issued for its listing in February. Surprisingly, during the signing of the file, the Court noticed that the matter had been listed by the Deputy Registrar on Wednesday, possibly on the court's orders, indicating permission.

The case was also listed on another bench, but there was no record of court permission in the file.

The second bench declined involvement in the case on Thursday and directed it to be presented before another bench. Judge Mehta discovered that, according to the roster released on January 5 by the Acting Chief Justice, the authority to permit urgent criminal cases to be included in the supplementary cause list had been granted exclusively to their bench. This right, intended for advocates presenting matters at 10:30 in the morning, was given based on the nature of each case.

Despite this right not being formally assigned to any other bench, it was indirectly exercised against their bench. This decision went against the petitioner, Ashok Chhajed, as an advocate had previously mentioned on January 22 that the case should be listed the next day due to the impending marriage of the petitioner's son on January 27. The advocate expressed concerns about the possibility of the petitioner's arrest in the criminal case.

Despite his bench having heard the case, the request was rejected based on the nature of the appeal. Judge Mehta expressed surprise that, despite the refusal to grant permission, the petition got listed in the supplementary cause list of January 24. The court acknowledged that there was an irregularity in the listing of the case.

Top of Form