Ayodhya petitioner to move SC today

Updated on Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 10:05

New Delhi: Retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, whose plea for a court direction to the parties in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute to find an amicable and out-of-court settlement was dismissed by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court last week, will file an appeal in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

"The High Court order has not disheartened me at all and I am definitely going to file an appeal before the Supreme Court," the 73-year-old Tripathi had said after his plea was dismissed last Friday.

"I am not ready to give up as my effort was aimed only at serving the larger objective of ensuring peace and communal harmony in the country," he said.

The 16-page written order released by the three-judge bench of Justice SU Khan, Justice Sudhir Agrawal and Justice DV Sharma had termed the amicable settlement plea as "mischievious" and slapped a Rs 50,000 fine on Tripathi.

"Considering the facts and circumstances and also the fact that the applicant, without any lawful excuse or reason, has filed this application, we hold this attempt mischievous and therefore, he deserves to be imposed exemplary costs of Rs 50,000," the bench ruled.

The bench had also frowned on Tripathi's plea that the verdict could lead to law and order problems.

"We are really surprised to hear the wonderful argument by which he tries to frighten a court of law alleging apprehension of violence if judgment is delivered and thereby asking the court not to decide a case.

"The ways and means may be sophisticated but the end game is clear. This is something what the people of India least expect from a court of law and that too the highest court in a province," the court added.

While two of the three judges — Justices SU Khan and Sudhir Agarwal — unanimously rejected Tripathi’s plea and imposed the fine, Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, in minority, had later said that he was not consulted by the other judges and that the hefty fine on the respondent is not permissible under law.

IANS

How can anyone expect an out-of-court settlement, which was not forthcoming all these years, to be arrived at overnight? Should the court defer the decision for a period of say 6 months for an amiable solution to come up? What if a solution does not come up within 6 months? Would then the issue not be one that festered for an unnecessary 6 months, maybe bringing up unexpected problems instead? Since 24th Sept has already been declared the date of verdict, there is no purpose in striving for hope-gymnastics at this late hour.

http://www.zeenews.com/news656721.html