Developed By: iNFOTYKE
SHILLONG: The High Court which took up the petition on education scam on Tuesday asked the petitioner to file additional affidavits related to the earlier orders of the High Court and Supreme Court related to the issue.
The petition was taken up by the Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari who granted two weeks’ time for the petitioner to file affidavits.
The Court observed that during the course of consideration of the matter, it transpired from the submissions made by N Syngkon, the counsel for the petitioner Agnes Kharshiing and also by the counsels for the CBI and the State Government that the CBI report, as referred by the petitioner in paragraph 24 of the writ petition , was made pursuant to an order passed in a batch of petitions led by WP(C) No. 106 (SH) of 2010; and after filing of the report by the CBI, the Single Judge ordered that the same be transmitted to the State Government for appropriate proceedings.
According to the Court, it was also indicated that thereafter, the matter was taken in intra court appeals by some of the selected candidates as also by the State Government wherein, the Division Bench modified the order of the Single Judge and ordered that a High Level Scrutiny Committee be constituted to look into the matter.
The order of the High Court said that it was further indicated that the matter was thereafter taken to the Supreme Court in the petition for Special Leave to appeal by some persons whose names were struck off on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee so constituted wherein the Supreme Court has passed an order staying operation of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court; and the matter is pending in the Supreme Court.
“However, the major part of the submissions, particularly concerning the order of the Single Judge, order of the Division Bench, the subject matter of Petition for Special Leave to appeal before the Supreme Court and the order passed by the Supreme Court have only been stated; and the relevant documents including the copies of orders passed by the respective Courts have not been placed on record”, the Chief Justice observed.
According to the Court, looking at the issues sought to be raised, when the petitioner appears to be the person who had filed the FIRs in the matter and had otherwise been in know of the pendency of the matter in the Supreme Court, it was expected of her to state all the relevant facts with all specifications and copies of the necessary documents.
In this context, the counsel for the petitioner sought time for filing additional affidavits