Tennydard files recall petition in SC

SHILLONG: Tennydard  Marak, who is pursuing the ST status case of Chief Minister Mukul Sangma has filed a recall petition in Supreme Court by stating that the lawyer for the petitioner had in fact sought  for adjournment in the last hearing and this was not objected to by the respondents .
The recall petition was filed to a have a re-look into the order passed by the Division Bench of  Supreme Court  comprising  Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit on September 18 .
Tennydard  through his lawyer said that on September 18, the arguing counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the Supreme Court on account of his personal difficulty. “A letter for adjournment was circulated which was not opposed by the respondents. The order thus passed in his absence may kindly be recalled and the writ petition be heard on merits and decided by this Court”, the petitioner said.
The September 18  order of Supreme Court  had said, “We are not inclined to continue with these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitions are dismissed. However, the parties may take up the issue with the High Court of Meghalaya. Pending applications are disposed of”.
However, the recall petition  filed before the Supreme Court on October 13 stressed the need of recalling the order of September 18 on the ground that the petitioner had earlier approached the High Court following which a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court.
“No useful purpose will be served to go back to the High Court”, the petitioner said.
The petitioner had reminded that the Supreme Court in an earlier order had stayed the proceedings of the State Level Scrutiny Committee which was entrusted to examine the ST status.
The petitioner also questioned the validity of any  inquiry  by the  Scrutiny Committee appointed by the State whose executive head is the Chief Minister against whom the ST status case was pending.
During the last hearing, the petitioner had sought adjournment for the first time to file additional affidavit while the defendants had as many as 14 adjournments.
The petitioner, while expressing unconditional apology for not filing the additional affidavit in time said that there has never been any conscious attempt to delay the proceedings.
The petitioner also said that pleadings on the matter are complete.” The petitioner’s counsel was heard on the merits of the matter by this Court on 20/03/2015. However, due to paucity of time, the hearing did not conclude”, the petitioner said, pleading that in the interest of justice, the September 18 order can be recalled.