PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has directed that “suitable action” be taken against a judicial officer posted at the Quepem court for passing orders but failing to issue certified copies of the orders thus leaving the litigants inconvenienced and now faced with the prospect of having to argue the matters all over again before a different court.
After the matter was brought to the notice of the High Court, it initiated a suo-motu petition and called for a report on all such cases that were decided by the judge in question, but for which orders were not issued.
According to the report filed by the Registrar, there were a total of six civil cases and seven criminal cases where the matter was decided but orders were not issued. After the High Court inquiry, two additional cases from the time the judicial officer was posted at Canacona were found.
“Despite administrative requests and, in some cases, judicial directives, the process mandated by the law was never completed. As a consequence, the fate of the litigating parties is in a state of limbo. Such parties declared successful are deprived of the fruits of their so-called success. Their counterparts were deprived of their right to seek further redressal,” the High Court observed.
“We found the situation emanating from the reports quite disturbing. Despite judicial and administrative directives, there was no adequate compliance. Moreover, the reasons for non-compliance were also not forthcoming despite opportunities on the administrative side,” the High Court bench of Justices M S Sonak and Bharat Deshpande ruled.
The court then proceeded to quash many of the “so called judgements/orders” and ordered that they be heard afresh.
“In the interests of the administration of justice, We, therefore, are constrained to quash and set aside the below-mentioned so-called judgments/orders passed by the said Presiding Officer while presiding the court at Canacona and after that, the court at Quepem for not preparing, signing and uploading the judgments/orders delivered by her purportedly allowing or dismissing the suit and convicted the accused persons in criminal matters,” the High Court ruled.
Of the six civil matters, after orders from the High Court, the judicial officer offered copies of her orders in two matters.
Of the remaining four matters, one was taken up by the High Court and disposed of while the remaining were sent back to the JMFC B court at Quepem where they are to be heard afresh and disposed of preferably within three months. The matters from the Canacona court were sent back to the Canacona court for fresh adjudication
Similarly, the criminal matters too were quashed by the High Court and directed to be heard afresh by the B Court.
