‘Courts, With Dockets Already Over-Flowing”‘: P & H HC Restricts Filing Of Multiple Writ Petitions On Similar Cause Of Action [Read Order]

first_imgNews Updates’Courts, With Dockets Already Over-Flowing”‘: P & H HC Restricts Filing Of Multiple Writ Petitions On Similar Cause Of Action [Read Order] Mehal Jain21 July 2020 7:56 AMShare This – xThe Punjab and Haryana High Court last week restricted the practice of filing multiple writ petitions with regard to the same or similar cause of action. Noting that “the dockets of the Courts are already over-flowing”, Justice Anil Kshterpal opined that the filing of the multiple petitions is “neither in the interest of justice nor in the interest of the Judicial Institution”. The…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Punjab and Haryana High Court last week restricted the practice of filing multiple writ petitions with regard to the same or similar cause of action. Noting that “the dockets of the Courts are already over-flowing”, Justice Anil Kshterpal opined that the filing of the multiple petitions is “neither in the interest of justice nor in the interest of the Judicial Institution”. The Single Bench expressed the view that “it results in wastage of valuable time of the Institution” to which “the Bar and the Bench are equal participants”. “This Institution has been set-up to make a sincere endeavour to give justice to all the litigants. For achieving that goal, it is necessary that unnecessary filing of any kind of petitions should be discouraged”, the court said. The Single Bench was hearing a petition filed by a workers’ union against the State of Punjab and other respondents. “At the outset, it is significant to note that the writ petitioner has filed a previous Civil Writ Petition, which after notice of motion issued on 24.06.2020, is pending for 20.07.2020. The parties to the previous writ petition as well as the present writ petition are exactly the same”, noted the Court. “Question which this Court is called upon to answer is ‘Whether multiple writ petitions with regard to same or similar cause of action between the same parties, should be permitted to be filed or not?'”, reflected the bench. Justice Kshetarpal observed that the High Court, for regulating the filing of writ petitions, has notified the writ jurisdiction (Punjab and Haryana) Rules, 1976. As per the format issued, in the Index of the petition, there is a requirement of disclosing whether there is any other similar case or not. Further, the bench noted that Rule 32 of the 1976 Rules provides that In all matters for which no provision is made by these rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, shall apply mutatis mutandis, in so far as they are not inconsistent with these rules. The Single Judge appreciated that Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC prescribes that while filing a petition or a suit, whole of the claim, which the plaintiff or the petitioner is entitled to make in respect of a cause of action, shall be required to be added failing which he shall not afterwards be entitled to sue in respect of the portions so omitted or relinquished. Similarly, the bench observed that Explanation IV of Section 11 of the CPC, also provides that any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in such former suit or petition under Article 226, shall be deemed to have been a matter directly or substantially in issue in such suit or proceedings. “Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC, is thus applicable particularly when in the 1976 Rules, there is no provision inconsistent with the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC”, said the bench. Noting that Section 141 of the CPC deals with the miscellaneous proceedings and the Explanation added thereto provides that the expression “proceedings” would not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court, however, took the view that on account of the specific provision made in the 1976 Rules, the procedure prescribed in the CPC has been made applicable unless such provision is inconsistent with the 1976 Rules. “The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also, on more than one occasion deprecated the practice of filing multiple writ petitions on same or similar cause of action”, reflected the bench. Justice Kshetarpal reiterated at the time of filing a writ petition, the petitioner is required to make a disclosure in the Index and the relevant para, if such or similar petition is pending before or decided by the Supreme Court or the High Court or any other court. The writ petitioner is also required to disclose the difference in the cause of action, if any, in both the writ petitions, if any. Still further, the writ petitioner shall disclose the reasons why the relief claimed in the subsequent petition could not be claimed or included in the previously instituted petition. “These observations/guidelines are being issued because filing of the multiple writ petitions should be avoided”, said the court. In the instant case, the question “Whether this Court should entertain the second petition?” was answered in the negative by the Single Judge. Keeping in view the fact that the present writ petition has been filed by the Workers’ Union, the Court did not “wish to pass any harsh orders” and accordingly, disposed off the petition.Click Here To Download Order[Read Order] Next Storylast_img read more

OPTIONS BY JIM REDWINE

first_img OPTIONSGAVEL GAMUT By Jim RedwinePeg and I voted early. I am not aware of whose idea early voting was, but it was a good one. Perhaps the period could be expanded and maybe a safe and secure system of voting from home could be devised. My opinion is that the more citizens who cast one legitimate ballot the better. If we can deliver packages by drone, get gourmet meals sent to our homes and pay our taxes over the internet we should be able to hold legitimate elections that meet our current lifestyle and encourages all who are qualified to vote. Of course, such a system would need to ensure only those qualified vote and ensure that there is only one vote per voter. But as we plan to colonize Mars and the Moon we ought to be able to call upon our ingenuity to increase our options here on Earth.In my view, that is what differentiates us from all other species, options. And the important decisions as to who should lead us forward are one critical area where options matter most. We should not only encourage maximum participation in elections, but we should also make that participation inviting and easy. After all, we know our society demands maximum ease in such things as satellite and cable TV, drive-through fast foods and shopping by the index finger, so why should we make voting less accessible?Some of you will read this article on or before Election Day on November 06, 2018. If you have not voted, please do so. You will feel better when your taxes come due if you feel you have had some input into who sent the statements to you. I see participation in our democracy much as I view the case settlement system I helped devise in the Circuit Court of Posey County, Indiana. Let’s take a divorce for example. Two spouses who once loved one another and perhaps had children together or operated a business, now need to go new directions. How can the vital issues of child custody and property division best be resolved? Is it better to have the divorcing spouses turn their future over to a complete stranger, a judge, or might they be happier if they work together to resolve things for themselves? This system of keeping the couple’s options open leads to happier children and a much greater chance of a better future for all involved. In other words, such a court case is kind of like an election where the participants, the voters, have the option to impact their own destiny.We may make a bad choice occasionally, but we can rectify matters at the next election if we stay involved. One thing is for sure if we do not vote we cannot impact the selection of those people who control our lives. And if we lose control we are in the same position as all other species, that is, we will have no control because we did not exercise our options.For more Gavel Gamut articles go to www.jamesmredwine.comOr “Like” us on Facebook at JPegRanchBooksandKnittingFacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmailSharelast_img read more

Carr’s Group praises its flour mills

first_imgCarr’s Group, the farming and food conglomerate, said its flour mills had delivered an ‘excellent performance’ in its first half.However, the company, which also has assets in the animal feed industry, said revenue in its food group was lower because of weaker commodity prices – despite improved UK volumes.In a statement for the six months to 28 February 2015, Carr’s said: “The 2014 UK wheat harvest was large. However, the bread-making quality of home-grown wheat was disappointing as a result of the below-average protein levels.”And it added: “Once again, the flexibility provided by the portside locations of our two northern mills has meant we have been able to source consistently good-quality wheat from both the UK and overseas.“We are also looking to develop longer-term strategic relationships with our customers and a shared approach to risk management in a period of continued commodity market and exchange rate volatility.”The company said its Kirkcaldy mill continued to “exceed initial expectations” via “improved operational efficiencies” and an “uplift in volumes”.Within the whole group, revenue was down 2.8% to £208.6m, from £214.7m the year before and profit before tax was up to £10.6m, a hike of 5.4%.last_img read more