Supreme Court criticises registry's non-listing of Adani Power case
text_fields
New Delhi: The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with its registry for failing to list the Adani Power case despite a judicial order.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave informed the court that the registry claimed to have no instructions for listing the matter.
The court criticised the registry's actions and summoned a senior official for discussion. The case is now scheduled as the first hearing for Wednesday.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court voiced displeasure with its registry for not listing a matter related to Adani Power, despite a judicial order. As the bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar commenced the day's proceedings, it inquired with senior advocate Dushyant Dave about the Adani Power case.
Dave, representing Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited in the case, informed the apex court that when lawyers associated with him approached the registry and inquired about the matter, officials there stated they had no instructions for listing it.
"If the government were to ignore the court's orders, it would be treated as contempt, but when the registry defies the court's orders, should it not be viewed seriously?" Dave queried the bench.
The bench sought to understand why and at whose behest the registry had not listed the case for a hearing.
"Why? At whose behest? Directed by whom?" the judges asked and summoned a senior registry official to the court to discuss the matter in chambers.
The matter is now listed as the first case for hearing on Wednesday.
Earlier, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, a power distribution company wholly owned and run by the State of Rajasthan, had written a letter to the Supreme Court Secretary General seeking an inquiry into the listing of an application filed by Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (APRL) in a case already decided by the apex court two years ago.
The letter stated that the listing of APRL's application "raises an extraordinarily serious question going to the very root of the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court's Registry."
