<p>Bhatt had earlier moved the Commission saying that he was neither being cross examined by this commission under the provisions of Section 4(a) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 195, nor was the Commission receiving evidence from him on affidavit.<br /><br />“It would be improper to permit the continuance of cross examination by parties whom no such legal right accrues under the Act, especially when my affidavit in reference is pending before the Supreme Court,” Bhatt had contended. <br /><br />Bhatt however had raised objections to be cross questioned only after the state government tried to bring out Bhatt’s controversial career graph by throwing a flurry of uncomfortable questions on him. <br /><br />Demolishing Bhatt’s credentials, the state counsel argued that Bhatt cannot be treated as a credible witness with departmental inquiries pending against him.</p>
<p>Bhatt had earlier moved the Commission saying that he was neither being cross examined by this commission under the provisions of Section 4(a) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 195, nor was the Commission receiving evidence from him on affidavit.<br /><br />“It would be improper to permit the continuance of cross examination by parties whom no such legal right accrues under the Act, especially when my affidavit in reference is pending before the Supreme Court,” Bhatt had contended. <br /><br />Bhatt however had raised objections to be cross questioned only after the state government tried to bring out Bhatt’s controversial career graph by throwing a flurry of uncomfortable questions on him. <br /><br />Demolishing Bhatt’s credentials, the state counsel argued that Bhatt cannot be treated as a credible witness with departmental inquiries pending against him.</p>
