Justice Sandeep N Bhatt of the Gujarat High Court on Thursday raised serious questions over the conduct of a judicial officer in the High Court Registry [Jayshreeben Pradeepbhai Joshi v. State Of Gujarat & Anr]..A day later, Justice Bhatt’s roster was changed by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and he has now been shifted to a division bench headed by a judge senior to him..The controversy involves Registrar (SCMS & ICT) AT Ukrani, who had failed to return physical files of 15 cases to a Surat court for seven months after his transfer in 2019.In a strongly-worded order passed on February 13, Justice Bhatt said he was “flabbergasted” that Ukrani has been working with the Registry of the High Court for the past six years.During this period, Ukrani has been a subject of controversy and has caused misunderstandings among judges of the High Court, Justice Bhatt said, not holding back.“This individual has remained a subject of controversy, causing misunderstandings among the judges of this Court. Furthermore, he has shown audacity in deliberately delaying the compliance of judicial orders/directions issued by this Court. This person has been working in the Registry for the past six years as he is an omnipotent individual,” the order said.."This individual has remained a subject of controversy, causing misunderstandings among the judges of this Court."Justice Bhatt on Registrar Ashok Ukrani.The order was passed in a petition moved by 71-year-old Jayshreeben Pradeepbhai Joshi regarding a case unrelated to Ukrani. However, in Joshi’s case as well, the trial court records had gone missing.Joshi had moved a Radhanpur court in 2010 with a complaint case. In 2023, she approached the High Court stating that charges are yet to be framed on her complaint. Her case prompted the Court to order an inquiry into the matter. .Even as the papers of Joshi’s case were found and proceedings resumed, the High Court in December 2024 took suo motu note of the larger issue and called for reports from the Registry. Interestingly, one of the reports was submitted by Ukrani, the Registrar (SCMS & ICT).In an order passed on January 21, Justice Bhatt recorded that “some reliable source" brought to his notice “one such serious incident” of 15 files reported to be missing from the record of the concerned Additional District Court, Surat after the transfer of the concerned judge.That Additional District Judge was Ukrani, though the single-judge refrained from naming him.“It is also noted that the said Additional District Judge was transferred somewhere in the year 2019 to the registry of this Hon’ble Court and still working almost after completion of six years in the Registry of this Hon’ble Court,” the single-judge said in the order..The Court also observed that no action was taken at that time.“This incident is prima facie shocking and required to be dealt with in appropriate manner considering the gravity of such incident,” Justice Bhatt said while referring the matter to Chief Justice.On February 13, the Court was told that the Chief Justice on the administrative side has opined that since appropriate action was taken at the relevant time, there exists no reason to reopen the issues..Justice Bhatt remarked that it is always expected from the courts of law that the process of administration of justice must be conducted in a proper and fair manner. For this, transparency, competency and accountability must be maintained, the Court stressed.“In the case at hand, it appears that due to hoodwinking effort made by a concerned officer, a serious issue, where 15 files were missing for seven months, could not be resulted into consequential actions. Probably, this serious issue got quietus due to some apprehension of ignominy of this august institution if such incident would come into public domain,” the judge commented in the order..Probably, this serious issue got quietus due to some apprehension of ignominy of this august institution if such incident would come into public domain.Justice Sandeep Bhatt.Further, the Court said that the continued posting of the officer in the Registry was sending wrong signals to the other staff as well as the judicial officers across the State.“In this respect, it is required to take note that our High Court is taking action against other Judicial Officers on allegations of taking the files from the record/premises, even that too, by lodging FIRs.”Considering that the Chief Justice has decided not to reopen the case against Ukrani, Justice Bhatt wondered about the further action to be taken in Joshi’s case.“This Court is in quandary whether any further order is required to be passed in the present matter, as the case involves the loss of only one file,” the judge said..Nevertheless, Justice Bhatt posted the matter for further consideration on February 21.“However, considering the incident involving another officer, where 15 files were missing for seven months and that person has now been posted in the Registry of this Hon'ble Court for the past six years at the helm of affairs on the administrative side of the Registry, this Court cannot shut eyes to such glaring facts emerging from the record, which undeniably disturb the conscience of this Court.”.However, in a subsequent development that will likely take away the case from Justice Bhatt’s board, his roster was changed a day after he passed the order. From February 17 (Monday), he has been ordered to sit with Justice Ilesh J Vora on a division bench.Bar & Bench reached out to the Registrar General Moolchand Tyagi and Registrar Ukrani for their response on the issue, but did not receive a response at the time of publication of this story..[Read Order]
