Contempt of court proceedings in Kishan killing case

224

IMPHAL, Sep 21: The Guwahati High Court, single bench of Justice Ashok Potsangbam today has directed the Deputy Secretary Home for the contempt of court in connection a case related to late Dr. Th, Kishan, SDO Kashom Khullen.
A writ petition was filed by Th. Surendra Singh, father of late Dr. Kishan, at the Guwahati High court pleading the concerned court to issue notice to investigation to find out involvement of the then DC Ukhrul Pankaj Kumar Pal in the killing of his late son. Subsequently, on May 10, 2010 a sitting was held in this connection where in a notice was issued to show cause in this regards to the concerned authority.
In today’s sitting in connection with the petition, the respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit on August 16, 2010 duly sworn by one Th. Amalkumar Singh, Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur. In the Paragraph-4(1) of the affidavit filed by the respondent it said “the petitioner is guilty of gross misrepresentation and suppression of material facts and have pleaded incorrect and or insconsistent facts in his writ petition. The petitioner has deliberately concealed material facts and has mislead this Hon’ble Court to cause of notice against the respondents and on this ground alone, the writ petition ought to be dismissed”.
The court order said that the aforesaid extracted paragraph of the affidavit gives impression that the notice was issued on the misinterpretation of the petitioner, whereas the notice was issued on the request of the Government Advocates, Manipur who appeared on May 10, 2010 on behalf of the Government.
In view of the development the court was of tentative view that the officer who has sworn the affidavit has committed contempt of this court, there he is directed to appear hefore the competent court on September 27, 2010 and explain as to why this kind of unfounded allegations have been made against the court without verifying the records. Besides that it is also stated the it was surprising to note that the affidavit has not been prepared by any Government Advocate. Therefore the conclusion is that the affidavit has been prepared by the officers himself.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here