E-Paper
HC dismisses plea to meet alleged ultras
THE ALLAHABAD High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by pairokars of four alleged terrorists belonging to Jammu and Kashmir, who are detained in Naini Central Jail, Allahabad, in connection with terrorist activities at Faizabad.
THE ALLAHABAD High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by pairokars of four alleged terrorists belonging to Jammu and Kashmir, who are detained in Naini Central Jail, Allahabad, in connection with terrorist activities at Faizabad.
Pairokars are those who pursue a case on behalf of detainees.
In the petition, the pairokars had challenged the order dated December 1,2005 by which the senior superintendent of Central Jail, Naini, had allegedly restrained them and their counsel from meeting the accused.
Dismissing the writ petition filed by Murtaza Ali and others of J&K, a Division Bench, comprising Justice Amitava Lala and Justice Shiv Shankar observed, “Court cannot lose sight of threat perception in the country. Overall situation is changing time to time and the police authorities have to take into account all such facts and circumstances of each and every case separately.”
The Senior Superintendent of Central Jail, Naini had written a letter to the district magistrate, Allahabad, praying for identification of the persons required to meet the undertrial prisoners and for specific direction in respect of permission to petitioners to meet the accused.
Rejecting the claim of the petitioners, the court observed, “This is not an ordinary case where the permission will be given by the senior superintendent, Central Jail, as a matter of course, nor did he violate the law. He forwarded the matter to the district magistrate within the four corners of the UP Jail Manual and it is right in saying that without waiting for the decision, the writ petitioners have filed this writ petition surprisingly for quashing the communication under which permission was sought’’.
Elaborating the constitutional aspect involved in the matter, the court observed, “It is important to see that one should not be deprived of his right under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India to the extent that no person can be denied his right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice and it is equally important to see that one should not be opposed from discharging his duty of reasonable restriction under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India and the security of the State”.
HC summons official: The Allahabad High Court has issued notice to deputy director of Consolidation of Saharanpur, Vijay Kumar, and directed him to appear before the Court on February 20, 2006 asking him to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for willful non-compliance of an order of this court dated July 4, 2005.
Justice SN Srivastava said, prima facie it appears that Vijay Kumar, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur has not obeyed the order of this Court.
The petitioner alleged despite an order passed on July 4, 2005 directing him to decide a revision petition, the same was not decided yet and was still pending.
Counsel appointed: Pratap Narain Gangwar of Allahabad HC is appointed counsel for UP Co-operative Union Ltd, Lucknow.
