- (1.) HEARD.
(2.) IN this writ petition, there is a cry of the consumer litigants against the present judicial system, Mr. Pathak learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ad interim stay order was issued against the transfer in the month of July, 1988. He further submits that about 45 adjournments have been granted and the ad interim injunction granted in July, 1988, still continues. It is really a problem which compels us to see how to save the system from collapsing having the effective control on the subordinate judiciary. Mr. Pathak submits that a vigilance enquiry has already been conducted and is still going on. He further submits that it is nothing but an eye wash. He submits that if the transfer orders are stayed for years together and are not decided then it is a case of usurping the power of executive in the garb of passing a temporary injunction. IN the guarded language he wants to convey that there should be some check on the malafide action of the judiciary and arbitrary action should be dealt with iron hand to see that the confidence of the consumer litigants increases in the judiciary and the downward trend may be checked. I will not like to use some words which are used in the corridors of the Court about the functioning of the judiciary I will not agree to this proposition that the system is becoming the games sanctuary or the recreation centre for a class of persons. Mr. Pathak, being a seasoned advocate used the seasoned words and has not talked in a way which is generally talked in the corridors though he might have referred what is said in the corridor by saying that he is not saying but it is the talk of the corridor. I think that the order passed by my brother Hon'ble Justice Byas, on 16. 3. 1990 itself is sufficient and directions were given to the Presiding Officer, to decide the temporary injunction on 22-3-1990. The report of the Presiding Officer has not yet been received by this Court whether the case has been decided or not. I hereby further direct that in case, the matter relating to temporay injunction has not been decided so far even upto this date then it should not (sic now) be decided on 29. 5. 1990, finally and no adjournment should be granted to any of the parties. I further direct that in case the Presiding Officer fails to decide-the application, on 29. 5. 1990, then it will be taken as a contempt of Court. In case, it is found that the Presiding Officer, is intending to go on availing the leave then the learned District Judge, will look into the matter and will transfer the case to the other officer and will see personally that the temporar aplication is disposed of immediately on 29. 5. 1990. Though I have directed the Presiding Officer to dispose of the case finally on 29. 5. 1990 but it will not serve the purpose of the Society and the consumer litigants. I, therefore, request the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge to look into the matter so that such complaints may not be received. There were number of suggestions which were appreciated by the Bar. Some Judge used to visit the Bar room fortnightly after the Court time and used to hear their complaints. It was considered by those who were likely to be affected adversely by saying that it will prejudice their cause the burns of the system should be allowed to be felt to the consumer litigants. I further suggest to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to consider whether the revival of the old system of going to the Bar room after Court time by some judges to hear the grievance will be useful or not. I also request the Hon'ble Chief Justice to issue a direction that every temporary injunction application should be decided within 3 months. In case, it is not decided within the aforesaid period, the Presiding Officer will submit his report. I further propose that in any case, the temporary injunction application is not decided within 6 months, then an entry should be made in the service record of the Presiding Officer, to put a check on_ the working of the Presiding Officer, and to protect the consumer litigants. I am against the protective umbrella which is held to serve the cause of particular class of persons, may be to damage the cause of the consumer litigants. I feel that holding protective umbrella for a class of person should be stopped. Of Course, we will have to face the murmuring of those who are going to be adversely affected, as the benefit of the protective umbrella may not be available.
(3.) A copy of this order be sent to the Presiding Officer and the learned District Judge and a copy of this order be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. It will not be out of place here to mention that the complaint of Mr. Pathak, is not limited to the lower judiciary but he feels that his client is also facing burns of the working of our Registry. He has invited my attention to the order dated 6. 03. 1990, and prayed that this order should also be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for taking necessary action in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ;