The High Court Allahabad rejects the pleading of the lawyer who requests 1 lei crore as legal fees for “saving” ex-cji from “humiliation”

High Court Allahabad (Bench Lucknow) Today he rejected the pleading of a lawyer who requests a direction to the Ministry of Law and Justice to pay Rs. 1 Crore as taxes and expenses, claiming to have submitted certain cases to the Supreme Court to save the judge -chief since then, justice Dipak Misra, from “humiliation, insult, torture and removal.

A bank of Justice Rajan Roy and justice Om Prakash Shukla rejected his plea as well as his request to grant the Appeal Certificate to the Supreme Court Article 134a of the Constitution of India.

In his written petition, the personal petitioner, Lawyer Ashok PandeyHe also challenged the rejection of his representation, which he presented to the President of India on February 28, 2024, requesting Rs. 1 crore for the legal services provided by him in the “rescue” of CJI MISRA since then.

He claimed that his representation was subsequently transmitted to the Ministry of the Union Law, which was rejected by the ministry, and this represented the insult of the President of India.

Before the court, he claimed that it is waterproof for the Ministry of the Union Law to reject the “reference” sent by the honorary president of India. He stated that he presented the representation of the president, because the president is the authority to appoint the chief judge of India.

–President Honble sent me the representation to the ministry to make my payment. Then how can the ministry reject my representation/request/president’s reference? I asked the honorary president to make my payment, because I saved the CJI since then, which is appointed by the president,“He said.

Also Petition on the master of the Roaster issue in the supreme yard helped to establish and maintain the dignity of the CJI post.

For the context, in his plea in 2018, lawyer Pandey questioned the unilateral power of the CJI to constitute banks “arbitrarily” and to allocate the work of different banks. A bank with three judges dismissed His plea in April 2018.

In addition he transmitted in front of the Division Bank that he had filed another petition against the four judges of the Supreme Court who held a Press Conference in January 2018criticizing the CJI since then.

Before the court, he also referred to his letter and petition in SC on the motion of accusation against CJI MISRA, which he claimed was initiated under the leadership of Antonia Maino and Kapil Sibal.

In particular, in April 2018, 71 Rajya Sabha members from seven political parties have signed a notification requesting action procedures against justice MISRA. However, then Vice -President of India and President Rajya Sabha, Vekaiah Naidu, later rejected the opinion, saying he had no substantial merit.

During his arguments, he stated that when he submitted petitions for CJI Misra, people asked how much CJI Misra (for the deposit of petitions).

“CJI MISRA KE LIYE PETITII DAALI TO LOGON NE PUCHA KI MUJHE CJI MUJHE KITNA DIYA? BAIYE KITNI MANSIKTA HAI LOGON KI. MAIN CJI KE HIT MEIN KI THI THI YACHIKA, CJI MISRA PAANE KI APAKE KI APAKE,“Said lawyer Pandey.

He also claimed that he also deposited a petition against the movement to allow Prince Charles to inaugurate Commonwealth games, which took place in 2011 in India.

He argued that, after the issue came to the Supreme Court, the judges asked the Attorney General to look at it, and the next day, the news appeared that President Pratibha Patil would be the one who inaugurated the event and not Prince Charles.

Read the following X wire to find out more about his arguments:

ADV Pandey: I sent a representation to request taxes and expenses to President Honble, and the mentioned representation was transmitted to the Ministry of Law, which later rejected my prayer.

After hearing his arguments and presentations, the bank dictated the order by rejecting and pleading.

After his pleading was rejected, lawyer Pandey requested a certificate to appeal before the Supreme Court, claiming that his petition involved a substantial legal issue regarding the relationship between the president and the officials of the ministry. He asked if a reference sent by the president could be rejected by the ministry, given the constitutional status of the honorary president. However, the court also rejected this request.

Case title – Ashok Pandey vs Union of Bharat Thru. Sey. President of New Delhi and another 2

Case quotation: