Kishore Samrite, a former MLA from Madhya Pradesh, said that his petition was maintainable and that the Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in transferring the matter from a single bench to itself.
Advocate Kamini Jaiswal, appearing for him, told a bench comprising justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar that the division bench of the High Court passed the order without issuing him notice which deprived him of his right to be heard.
Jaiswal's submission that she has till now only argued on the jurisdictional aspect and not on the merits of the case came after Gandhi's counsel P P Rao concluded the arguments by asserting that Samrite's petition was politically motivated and politically inspired to tarnish the image of a young and upcoming politician.
Rao also raised objections to the averments made by Samrite in his affidavit saying nobody can accuse the judges of being biased.
However, during the rejoinder, the former MLA's counsel said, the division bench of the high court deviated from the practice by calling before it the Samrite's petition pending before the single bench on which the notice was issued on March 1.
She submitted that in such cases the practice is to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court for appropriate order but in this case the division bench entertained the prayer made in another identical petition for transferring the first petition. (More)