PEB scam: MP government not to give written submission against governor
While giving relief to Madhya Pradesh governor Ramnaresh Yadav in its Friday’s interim order on his petition seeking quashing of FIR against him in the PEB scam, the high court has clearly pointed out that all the parties in the case except the state government have presented their written submission in the casebhopal Updated: Apr 21, 2015 16:22 IST
While giving relief to Madhya Pradesh governor Ramnaresh Yadav in its Friday’s interim order on his petition seeking quashing of FIR against him in the PEB scam, the high court has clearly pointed out that all the parties in the case except the state government have presented their written submission in the case.
This has raised a question if the state government is reluctant to give its written submission against the governor or there are some other reasons behind it.
Apart from the petitioner, Special Task Force (STF), Union of India and Madhya Pradesh government are parties in the case.
When HT asked additional advocate general Purushendra Kaurav, who represents both the state government and the STF in the court in PEB scam-related cases, whether the state government was in a dilemma to go against the governor in the case and that’s why he has not given written submission against him on bahalf of the state government, he suggested that the state government would not give a written submission against the governor at all.
“We have not been asked to give written submission, as you seem to suggest. We can’t be forced to give a written submission. Whatever we wished to argue in the matter has already been orally presented in the court. Basically governor has alleged certain things against the STF. The STF doesn’t disclose to the state government as to what it’s doing in the case. So, how would the state government know as to what to say in the court,” said Kaurav.
Kaurav, who has already presented a written submission in the court on behalf of the STF praying the court to dismiss the governor’s petition with costs, said that there was no legal or moral obligation with the state government to give a written submission on its behalf nor would it have any impact on the course of hearing in the case or its outcome.
Other senior lawyers HT talked to agreed to Kaurav on the point that presenting a written submission in the court was not obligatory either for the petitioner or the respondents, but maintained if the court expected them to do it for procedural ease, they should do it.
“In cases like this, a history is made. Orders given in such matters are quoted in future. Besides, who-so-ever loses the case, goes to Supreme Court more often than not. Therefore, the courts ask for written submission so that nothing is left out and everything argued by both the parties come on record. It’s done for procedural ease and normally nobody has any problem doing it,” said former advocate general of the state, Raghunandan Singh.
Senior counsel Rajendra Tiwari, who had appeared on behalf of Congress leader Digvjjaya Singh seeking CBI probe into PEB scam, said both the petitioners and the respondents in the case had told the court in earlier hearing that their argument was incomplete and whatever they needed to add to their oral argument would be presented in written submission.
It’s why the court is expecting written submission from them,” he said, adding it’s also an attempt on behalf of Shivraj Singh Chouhan government to shield the governor as long as it can.