HC bench rebuts allegations of bias by fee committee chief

HC bench rebuts allegations of bias by fee committee chief

SagarKumar.Mutha@timesgroup.com

Hyderabad:  19.05.2020

The Telangana high court on Monday put to rest all speculation over a controversial memo filed by former judge and current chairman of Telangana Admissisons and Fee Regulatory Committee (TAFRC) Justice P Swaroop Reddy against sitting judge Justice MS Ramachandra Rao alleging bias. The memo sought recusal of Justice Rao from hearing a case that challenged his fee hike order pertaining to post-graduate (PG) medical courses.

The court clarified that while the actions of the former judge to attribute motives to a sitting judge was fit enough to launch a criminal contempt case against the former, it had no such plan as it did “not want to display the same kind of unacceptable behaviour.”

“By employing intemperate language and by making scurrilous, false and motivated allegations, the former judge displayed behaviour that is unbecoming of a judge,” the high court said. The division bench, comprising Justice Ramachandra Rao and Justice K Lakshman, which dealt with the memo filed by the TAFRC chairman said that filing the memo amounts to interference in administration of justice.

The bench while refuting the allegations made by Justice Reddy, recused itself from the case and referred it to Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan.

The CJ is likely to take up the case on Tuesday, according to Sandeep Reddy Sama, counsel for the aggrieved students. The bench also passed an order charging Justice Reddy with resorting to bench hunting (a bid by litigant to manage the matter being listed and heard by a particular judge or bench to ensure a favourable order) to have the case removed from the current bench.

“We did not want this case. We heard it only because the Chief Justice, as master of the roster, has sent it to us after marking it as an urgent matter,” the bench said.

The bench in its order penned by Justice Rao found fault with the memo filed by the TAFRC chairman and said in his capacity as a quasi-judicial authority, he cannot in law defend his decisions personally before the high court by filing memos and acting as a private litigant. “A statutory authority like the chairman cannot even challenge the adverse orders passed against him. The harsh language used by the chairman in his memo is unbecoming and not expected and goes beyond all levels of propriety,” the bench said.