JUSTICE P. D. DINAKARAN versus HON'BLE JUDGES INQUIRY COMMITTEE & ORS.

JUSTICE P. D. DINAKARAN versus HON'BLE JUDGES INQUIRY COMMITTEE & ORS.

The petitioner, having had knowledge of respondent no.3's appointment and relevant facts, and having failed to raise objection for over a year, is deemed to have waived his right to object. The late objection is a calculated attempt to delay proceedings, and there is no legal basis to nullify the Committee's actions for alleged bias. Nevertheless, based on a finding of reasonable apprehension of bias, the Chairman is requested to nominate another jurist in respondent no.3's place; proceedings to continue on charges already framed.

Parties
Petitioner: JUSTICE P. D. DINAKARAN; Respondent: HON'BLE JUDGES INQUIRY COMMITTEE & ORS.; Respondent No.3 Member of Committee (senior Advocate): Shri P.P. Rao
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No. 217 of 2011 / Final Decision on Merits
Outcome
Writ petition dismissed with observations
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Bias, Waiver, Judges (inquiry) Act, Rules of Natural Justice
Constitutional Law Judicial Accountability Administrative Law Natural Justice Bias Waiver Judges (inquiry) Act Rules of Natural Justice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JUSTICE P. D. DINAKARAN

Petitioner

HON'BLE JUDGES INQUIRY COMMITTEE & ORS.

Respondent

Shri P.P. Rao

Respondent No.3 Member of Committee (senior Advocate)

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) No. 217 of 2011 / Final Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inclusion of respondent no.3 in the Inquiry Committee is vitiated by bias
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner waived his right to object to respondent no.3's appointment

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner, having had knowledge of respondent no.3's appointment and relevant facts, and having failed to raise objection for over a year, is deemed to have waived his right to object. The late objection is a calculated attempt to delay proceedings, and there is no legal basis to nullify the Committee's actions for alleged bias. Nevertheless, based on a finding of reasonable apprehension of bias, the Chairman is requested to nominate another jurist in respondent no.3's place; proceedings to continue on charges already framed.

Court Disposition

Writ petition dismissed with observations

Orders

  • Chairman requested to nominate another distinguished jurist in place of respondent no.3 in the Inquiry Committee
  • Reconstituted Committee to proceed on charges already framed against petitioner