Varanasi. An application was submitted on Saturday in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ravi Kumar Diwakar on behalf of Anjuman Inazaniya Masajid Committee to replace the Advocate Commissioner who was conducting the commission proceedings in Gyanvapi campus. During the hearing in the court after lunch on this application, the advocates of Anjuman Inazaniya Masajid Committee questioned the functioning of the Advocate Commissioner and appealed to change them.
At the same time, the District Government Advocate present on behalf of the administration objected to the allegations of the advocates of Anjuman Inazaniya Masajid Committee and described the proceedings of the Advocate Commissioner as satisfactory. The court has sought objection from the plaintiffs and the Advocate Commissioner after hearing the arguments of the advocates of Anjuman Inazaniya Masajid Committee and the District Government Advocate.
The court says that in this case, a question mark has been placed on the Advocate Commissioner by the respondent Anjuman Inazaniya Masajid Committee, whereas, on behalf of the Respondent Government, Administration and Police Commissioner, the Advocate Commissioner has been called impartial by the Government Advocate. The copy of the application has not yet been received by the advocates of the plaintiffs, nor has the Advocate Commissioner appeared to present his side. In such a situation, it would be justified that the copy of the application should be given to the plaintiff. The court has fixed May 9, 2022 for the next hearing on the application of Anjuman Inaztiya Masajid.
During the hearing, advocates Abhay Nath Yadav, Mumtaz Ahmed, Rais Ahmed Ansari of Anjuman Inazaniya Masajid Committee appealed to replace Advocate Commissioner Ajay Kumar Mishra, who was doing the proceedings of the commission. It was argued that their objections were not paid attention to during the survey by the Advocate Commissioner. The authorized representative of his side was refused to be present on the spot.
Outside the western barricading of the mosque, pieces of platform-shaped stone were kept, looking at it scratching it with a finger. They were insisting for videography by opening the lock at the entrance of the mosque, while the order has not been passed by the court to do videography inside the barricading by opening the lock. It also alleged that the judicial process was not fair during the inspection by the Advocate Commissioner on May 6. Action was being taken as per the instructions given by the advocates of the plaintiffs. Despite their protest in writing, the date of May 7 and 3 o’clock was fixed for the proceedings of the commission. The advocates questioned the functioning of the Advocate Commissioner and appealed to appoint another advocate as Advocate Commissioner in his place.
During the hearing, District Government Advocate (Civil) Mahendra Prasad Pandey, appearing on behalf of the administration, objected to the allegations made by the advocates of Anjuman Inazaniya Masajid Committee. It was argued that the proceedings of the commission on May 6 were conducted smoothly and were satisfactory. The commission proceedings lasted for about two to two and a half hours. The date of May 7 has already been fixed for the remaining proceedings. So far two Advocate Commissioners have been changed in this case.
Advocate Ajay Kumar Mishra is the third Advocate Commissioner for the proceedings of the commission. The request to replace them is an abuse of the legal process, while Advocate Commissioner Ajay Kumar Mishra is editing the proceedings in accordance with the order of the court. The application of the advocates of Anjuman Vijatiya Masajid Committee is baseless on the ground that it has been made only with the aim of making allegations and obstructing the proceedings of the commission and not allowing it to happen.
Leave a Reply