After the APPs went on strike demanding the removal of the PP, the Court urged them to fulfill their appointments.
Shibshankar Mahato v. State, a case in which additional public prosecutors (APPs) were taking part in strikes and preventing litigants, clerks, and attorneys from appearing in district court, was dismissed by the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday.
The State’s attorney reported to the Bench at the start of today’s hearing that things had returned to normal and the district court was operating normally now.
In light of the aforementioned report, a bench consisting of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya and Acting Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam dismissed the appeal. The Court remarked to the counsel,
“If your customers don’t follow orders, you kick everyone out. Since all of these positions are prestigious, you should work to improve your entire bio and resume. The most crucial thing is how you conduct yourself when you first enter the office. You must live up to the appointment.”
The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) that claimed that since March 24, when APPs called for an indefinite strike in order to seek the removal of the public prosecutor (PP) for the district court, proceedings before the sessions court under the jurisdiction of the District and Sessions Judge, Purba Bardhaman, have been hampered.
The Court had stated during the previous hearing that the PP and APPs could not engage in strikes and that anyone doing so would be required to resign from their positions.
A report on the actions taken was also required from the State’s legal counsel.
The APPs had requested the PP not to conduct any cases before the court on March 28. The PP, however, refused to do so, which led to a violent altercation between the attorneys.
Even after receiving a letter from the Burdwan Bar Association, the district magistrate declined to remove the PP.
According to the petitioner, the strike made it so that the personal interests of court employees came before the right to a free and fair administration of justice.
According to the plea, the Burdwan Bar Association called a meeting to discuss the concerns of its members regarding the fact that innocent defendants are awaiting trial or incarceration while no bail hearings are taking place in any of the sessions courts. However, nothing positive came out of the meeting.
The petition stated that “the common litigants, like the petitioner, have been victims of unfavorable circumstances without any fault of their own and their matters are going unrepresented in the Court of Law.”
In order to get the courts back to operating normally, the petitioner prayed for instructions. He also requested the formation of a fact-finding panel to determine the origin of the disagreement.
Advocate Ahana Ghosh Mandal represented the petitioner.
The State was represented by attorney Anirban Roy.
.Written By- Tushar Vashisth students of 3rd year BBA LLB at Chandigarh University
0 Comments