Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Dec 20: In a major embarrassment for the State Government, sitting Member of Parliament (MP) of ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and renowned lawyer of the country Muzaffar Hussain Beig today lambasted the working of present Advocate General and his team and said that latter was purposely avoiding appearance in a vital case.
Senior Advocate Muzaffar Hussain Beig, who is also former Deputy Chief Minister, was appearing for M/s Hindustan Construction Corporation Ltd before the court of Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar, which was hearing the appeal filed by the State Government through Chief Engineer Mughal Road.
It is pertinent to mention here that in a dispute between M/s Hindustan Construction Corporation Ltd (HCCL), which is constructing Mughal Road, and Chief Engineer concerned, the arbitrators had passed an award in the favour of HCCL vide order dated December 28, 2014.
However, the Chief Engineer Mughal Road challenged the decision of the arbitrators before the Principal District Judge Shopian. But he failed to get some reprieve as the Principal District Judge Shopian vide order dated April 2, 2016 upheld the decision of the arbitrators.
Thereafter, the Chief Engineer Mughal Road filed an appeal before the High Court under Section 37 of the J&K Arbitration Act, 1997 challenging the order of the Principal District Judge Shopian and award passed by the arbitrators.
However, the matter was adjourned from time to time mainly because of ‘non-cooperation’ from the Advocate General.
Today, when the matter came up for hearing before Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar, Additional Advocate General Rohit Kapoor again sought adjournment on behalf of Advocate General on the ground that Advocate General was not available in Jammu.
Senior Advocate Muzaffar Hussain Beig along with Advocate Aruna Thakur appearing for Hindustan Construction Corporation Ltd strongly opposed the request for adjournment. “It is unbecoming on the part of Advocate General to avoid the matter which is of much importance”, Mr Beig remarked in the open court, adding “even on last date of hearing Additional Advocate General had sought adjournment on the same ground”.
While raising questions over the working of Advocate General Jehangir Iqbal Ganaie, the renowned legal luminary further said, “Advocate General is escaping to appear in this case. On one side appeals are filed by the State in a routine manner against the award of arbitrators and on the other side adjournments are sought again and again”, adding “it is a matter of concern that Advocate General disappears purposely and without laying any proper adjournment motion”.
Mr Beig further stated in the open court that when he was Advocate General of the State during the period between 1987 and 1989 he had raised the stature of the office of Advocate General by effectively cooperating with the High Court in early disposal of the matters. “It is quite unfortunate that when Darbar (Civil Secretariat) is at Jammu and Chief Justice’s Secretariat is at Jammu the Advocate General without seeking permission of the Bench opted to remain absent from the court”, he added.
He further submitted that the proper course was to lay an adjournment motion but this was not followed and inconvenience has been caused to the court as well as to him.
At this stage, Additional Advocate General Rohit Kapoor tried to clear some points on the Arbitration Act enacted by the Parliament and Jammu and Kashmir Assembly. Upon this, Mr Beig remarked, “I am ashamed of the arguments raised by AAG”.
While expressing displeasure, Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar in the open court said, “it is unfortunate that Additional Advocate General without any preparation has started arguing the matter more particularly when initially he requested for adjournment due to non-availability of Advocate General”.
Senior Advocate Muzaffar Hussain Beig prayed for release of the amount in terms of the award pleading that they have succeeded before the Principal District Judge before which forum the award was challenged. He further pleaded that the contesting respondent will safeguard the interest of the appellant pending the appeal and if directed, a bank guarantee will be furnished.
Finally, Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar said that the issue of interim relief will be considered on next date after hearing the Advocate General and the Senior Advocate for the respondent. “In the meanwhile, the appellant is directed to file legible copy of the award and the order of the Principal District Judge”, High Court said and directed the respondents to file objections on or before February 3, 2017.
Looking into lackadaisical approach of the State, Justice Sudhakar made it clear that adjournment as a matter of course will not be entertained and the matter will be listed for final hearing on February 9, 2017.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel