Live
- Three persons admitted to hospital for diarrhea treatment
- First Star Outside Milky Way Captured: WOH G64 is 2,000 Times Larger Than the Sun
- Sikkim govt to constitute state Niti Ayog: CM Tamang
- CBI books Rajasthan narcotics inspector for Rs 3 lakh bribe
- Rajasthan bypolls: A tough contest between BJP and Congress
- Albania joins SEPA, paving way for EU integration
- Japanese government approves 250-billion USD economic package to ease price pain
- Six pharma companies to set up their units in Telangana
- The Unstable Events of a 17-Wicket Day in Perth: India vs Australia
- Dutch FM's Israel trip cancelled after Netanyahu's arrest warrant
Nandigram poll case: Judge Kausik Chanda recuses, imposes Rs 5 lakh cost on Mamata Banerjee
Judge Kausik Chanda recuses, imposes Rs 5 lakh cost on Mamata Banerjee (Pic Credit: livelaw.in)
Justice Kausik Chanda of the Calcutta High Court Wednesday recused from hearing West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's petition challenging the election of BJP's Suvendu Adhikari from Nandigram, while imposing a cost of Rs 5 lakh for the manner in which the recusal was sought
Kolkata: Justice Kausik Chanda of the Calcutta High Court Wednesday recused from hearing West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's petition challenging the election of BJP's Suvendu Adhikari from Nandigram, while imposing a cost of Rs 5 lakh for the manner in which the recusal was sought.
Releasing the election petition of Banerjee, Justice Chanda said that he was doing so in order to thwart at the outset attempts by trouble-mongers to keep the controversy alive.
"A deliberate and conscious attempt was made to influence my decision before the recusal application was placed before me for judicial consideration on June 24," Justice Chanda observed pointing at social media posts by some TMC leaders.
"The calculated psychological offensives and vilification adopted to seek recusal need to be firmly repulsed, and a cost of Rupees five lakh is imposed upon the petitioner," he said.
In the 13-page order, the judge said that the imbroglio stemmed from the inception of the litigation due to the assignment of the case before his bench.
