HC refuses to grant urgent hearing to ex-CVC's plea

The Delhi high court on Thursday refused to grant urgent hearing on the plea of former central vigilance commissioner PJ Thomas that his appeal, pending with the President against his sacking, be decided first before his successor Pradeep Kumar assumes charge.

The Delhi high court on Thursday refused to grant urgent hearing on the plea of former central vigilance commissioner PJ Thomas that his appeal, pending with the President against his sacking, be decided first before his successor Pradeep Kumar assumes charge.

HT Image

"It is quite difficult to hear your petition at the eleventh hour," a division bench of justices Vikramjit Sen and Sindharth Mridul said referring to the oath taking ceremony of the new CVC scheduled at 11am on Thursday.

The Court, however, agreed to hear the petition of Thomas in due course and said that it could be listed for hearing on Friday.

Wills Mathews, the counsel for Thomas, mentioned the matter at 10:30 am before the bench which declined to hear it on urgent basis.

Thomas has pleaded for a direction to the President not to issue any warrant of appointment as CVC to defence secretary Kumar without first deciding on his representation to her against the judgement of the Supreme Court.

The apex court had on March 3 quashed the appointment of Thomas as CVC as a chargesheet was pending against him in a corruption case in Kerala. Thomas was appointed as CVC in September 2010.

Thomas has sought a direction to the ministry of personnel and public grievances that his representation against the Supreme Court verdict be decided within three weeks.

Thomas, in his representation to the President, has sought constitution of a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court to review the order.

The 1973 batch IAS officer has also sought the court's intervention in restraining the Centre from appointing a new CVC.

Thomas has cited reasons for non-filing a review plea before the Supreme Court saying its three-judge-bench decision lacked jurisdiction.

Citing legal opinions on the SC verdict, the petition said "Thomas was legally advised that any three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court was not having the jurisdiction to quash the appointment of the petitioner as CVC in the light of specific provisions in the CVC Act."

Thomas said he was not having an effective remedy "except the representation on which no action has so far been taken by the Centre, which they were duty-bound to take."

Thomas has sought invoking of Article 143 of the Constitution which empowers the President to get a five-member bench constituted to review the Supreme Court's quashing order.