Grewal quits, Mattewal new AG
Tribune News Service

CHANDIGARH, Oct 5 — Punjab's Advocate-General, Mr G.S. Grewal, today sent in his resignation to the Chief Minister, Mr Parkash Singh Badal.

According to a PTI report, the Punjab Government tonight appointed a senior advocate, Mr H.S. Mattewal, as Advocate-General in place of Mr Grewal. The 47-year-old Mr Mattewal is the husband of Mrs Maninder Kaur, who is a member of the Punjab Human Rights Commission. This would be Mr Mattewal's fourth tenure as Advocate-General.

Although Mr Grewal remained tight-lipped about the reasons why he resigned from the post, knowledgeable sources reveal that the Chief Secreatry, Mr R.S. Mann, visited his house this morning and told him that Mr Badal wanted to appoint new Advocate-General. Mr Grewal then sent in his resignation without considering the matter.

Designated as senior advocate in 1983, Mr Grewal successfully defended the state in various sensitive matters before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. These included municipal committee and panchayat elections, apart from defending the stand of the state before the Eradi Tribunal on the inter-state waters dispute.

Known for his integrity, competence and straight-forward nature, Mr Grewal, commanded respect in judicial circles and was able to carry on all law officers in his office along with him.

Maintaining a low profile, Mr Grewal defended Mr Badal in taking a stand against the People's Commission and infighting among the Sikh clergy.

This development has, however, shocked many in government circles, because Mr Badal had himself been championing the cause of Mr Grewal's appointment as an ambassador because of his "noble qualities."

Knowledgeable sources reveal that Mr Grewal had opposed the government stand for defending those senior officers who were involved in various scams. This was, perhaps, the reason why certain bureaucrats were unhappy. He was also opposed to the hefty fees paid to advocates by various boards and corporations.

His resignation is, however, likely to cause ripples among senior Akali Dal leaders.

These sources reveal that on September 29 Mr Grewal wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary that on September 18 when he was in court, some officers from the Secretariat had raided his office. This incident stunned Mr Grewal. In his letter Mr Grewal told the Chief Secretary that he did not have any prior intimation of the "raid". This must be the first incident when some civil servants decided to raid the office of Advocate-General.

The letter added that sections of the Bar and the Bench expressed their concern over it. People had their reasons and explanations. There was a good deal of emotional outburst among members of the staff, law officers and other friends. "I will feel obliged if the circumstances preceding the raid are brought to my notice," Mr Grewal is said to have asked the Chief Secretary.

Mr Grewal is said to have stated in the letter that he had painfully noticed that often the Advocate-General's office was bypassed in disregard of the rules and law. He explained that when the government challenged an interim order of the High Court in the V.K. Khanna case, the Advocate-General was not consulted.

Mr Grewal asked the government whether senior officers were immune and were not answerable to anyone, even when they knowingly pass orders in contravention of rules which they had themselves framed.

HC notices to Centre, Delhi on onion price

NEW DELHI, Oct 5 (UNI) — The Delhi High Court today issued show cause notices and directed the Centre and the Delhi Government to file a report within a fortnight listing steps taken or considered to prevent "hoarding, blackmarketing and inadequate supply" of scarce essential commodities like onions in the Capital.

A Division Bench headed by the Acting Chief Justice, Mr Y.K. Sabharwal, issued notices to the Union Ministry of Agriculture and the Chief Secretary of Delhi Government while hearing a public interest petition seeking directions to the authorities to control the skyrocketing prices of onions and other essential commodities in the Capital allegedly caused due to the collusion of traders and their ‘political masters’.

The Bench directed the Centre and the state government to state in an affidavit within two weeks whether they considered issuing of a notification under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, on the commodities listed in the PIL filed by the All India Lawyers Union (AILU) through its counsel Ashok Aggarwal.

The Central Government standing counsel, Mr H.S. Phoolka, accepted the notice on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Delhi Government standing counsel, Mr Anil Grover, accepted the notice on behalf of the Delhi Chief Secretary. The matter would further come up for hearing on November 3.

The PIL was filed in view of the price rise of essential commodities like onions (Rs 40 per kg), potatoes (Rs 15 per kg), capsicums (Rs 45 per kg), ginger (Rs 50 per kg), beans (Rs 30 per kg) and cauliflower (Rs 40 per kg) during the past three months.

Ailu urged the court to pass orders to prevent hoarding and black-marketing and ensure adequate supply of these essential commodities in the market immediately. It further urged the court to ensure sale of the essential commodities in the open market at reasonable prices by invoking the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, under which all the food items were covered.

Mr Grover submitted before the bench that the state government had taken steps in this regard but it would take some time before the steps showed results.

He objected to AILU moving the petition at this stage when the government had been making conscious efforts to normalise the situation and urged the court to consider the matter after about a month as by then the results of the steps would be known. "The issue of onions had posed a question on the existence of the government. The government was not sleeping over it," he submitted.

He claimed that the petition had been filed with a view to maligning the image of the government and that was the reason why the petition got publicity even before it had been taken up by the court.

However, the bench remained inconvinced with the arguments of Mr Grover and observed, "we can understand the government’s worry on prior media publicity, but the fact remains that the prices of essential commodities had gone up over the past few months. We do not know what steps the government had taken."