Expressing displeasure over the delay in filing response to a PIL, the Allahabad High Court has imposed Rs 5,000 cost on the Prime Minister&#39;s Office (PMO) and the Law Ministry.

A bench of Justice Sudhir Agrawal and Justice Abdul Moin of the Lucknow bench of the high court passed the order on the PIL moved by Sunil Kandu.

The petitioner has claimed that the central government takes cognisance of barely 10 reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), whereas about five thousand reports are submitted to it by the federal auditor every year.

The PIL also sought reform in the CAG. Apart from it, the PIL further questioned the role of the central government in not taking any action on audit objections raised by the CAG in the past 10 years.

Hearing the PIL, the high court had on August 1, 2017, given the PMO and the Law Ministry a month&#39;s time to file their response.

When the matter came up again before the bench, Assistant Solicitor General S B Pandey sought more time to file response on behalf of the PMO and the Law Ministry.

Expressing displeasure at this, the bench though granted one more opportunity to Pandey to file a reply , imposed Rs 5,000 cost on the PMO and Law Ministry for their lethargy in responding to the high court&#39;s direction. The court has fixed the matter for next hearing after three weeks.

A bench of Justice Sudhir Agrawal and Justice Abdul Moin of the Lucknow bench of the high court passed the order on the PIL moved by Sunil Kandu

Expressing displeasure over the delay in filing response to a PIL, the Allahabad High Court has imposed Rs 5,000 cost on the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and the Law Ministry. A bench of Justice Sudhir Agrawal and Justice Abdul Moin of the Lucknow bench of the high court passed the order on the PIL moved by Sunil Kandu. The petitioner has claimed that the central government takes cognisance of barely 10 reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), whereas about five thousand reports are submitted to it by the federal auditor every year. The PIL also sought reform in the CAG. Apart from it, the PIL further questioned the role of the central government in not taking any action on audit objections raised by the CAG in the past 10 years. Hearing the PIL, the high court had on August 1, 2017, given the PMO and the Law Ministry a month's time to file their response. When the matter came up again before the bench, Assistant Solicitor General S B Pandey sought more time to file response on behalf of the PMO and the Law Ministry. Expressing displeasure at this, the bench though granted one more opportunity to Pandey to file a reply , imposed Rs 5,000 cost on the PMO and Law Ministry for their lethargy in responding to the high court's direction. The court has fixed the matter for next hearing after three weeks.

Delay in response to PIL: High Court imposes Rs 5000 cost on PMO, Law Ministry

delay-in-response-to-pil

Delay In Response To Pil, News on Delay In Response To Pil, stories on Delay In Response To Pil, articles on Delay In Response To Pil, Delay In Response To Pil stories at Wion, Delay In Response To Pil news, Delay In Response To Pil latest news

delay in-response-to-pil

Delay in response to PIL: High Court imposes Rs 5000 cost on PMO, Law Ministry