Delhi questioned on rejig of sub-divisions for court cases
The Delhi High Court Wednesday asked the city government about the basis for its decision to reshuffle sub-divisions in two districts for the purpose of hearing of court cases.
"On what basis the areas have been shifted to various districts and also attached to different courts," said a division bench of Chief Justice D. Murugesan and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and posted the hearing Jan 7, 2013.
Two sub-divisions -- Vasant Vihar and Delhi Cantonment -- of south west district have been merged with New Delhi district, requiring litigants from these areas to attend court cases at the Patiala House district courts in central Delhi instead of the Dwarka district courts in southwest Delhi, a group of lawyers said in its petition.
The plea was filed by Dwarka Court Bar Association alleging that the reshuffle was arbitrary, as some areas have been shifted to those district courts which were far from the houses of litigants.
The bench asked the government to place on record the files relating to the rationale behind the reshuffle.
The association sought quashing of the Sep 11 notification saying that the decision of the government was against the policy of "justice at the doorstep".
"The impugned notification is devoid of any logic or reason and has been in total arbitrariness as the impugned notification runs contrary to the respondent's own policy of 'justice at doorstep'," the plea said.
The notification has taken out two pre-existing sub-divisions -- Vasant Vihar and Delhi Cantonment -- from south west district and merged them with New Delhi district, said the plea.
"....some areas which are part of these two sub-divisions and close proximity to the Dwarka court have been merged with New Delhi district," it said.
"People residing in these areas would be now compelled to approach the district courts at Patiala House to seek redressal of their grievances," it added.
"The notification completely overlooked the grave inconvenience and hardship that would be caused to the litigants. The irrational re-shuffling of the districts/sessions divisions would force the litigants to approach district courts far away from their places which would invariably increase the cost of litigation and would be an additional financial burden on litigants," the plea said.