Chandigarh, Feb. 17 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court on Monday stayed further proceedings pursuant to the February 9 notice of the Punjab State Commission for Scheduled Castes to leader of opposition Partap Singh Bajwa over his alleged objectionable remarks on state cabinet minister Harbhajan Singh ETO. The high court bench of justice Suvir Sehgal acted on the plea from Bajwa in which he had sought quashing of the notice, terming it illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and also sought quashing of other consequential proceedings. The controversy arose after Bajwa, while accusing the minister of corruption, said the Congress would take action against him after coming to power. "Jehda pehle band vajaanda reha, ehda band assi vajaavange (We will take to task the one who used to be a band player)," Bajwa had said. Responding to the remark, the minister had said his father used to play in a band to support the family and that the remarks reflected Bajwa's "elitist and anti-Dalit mindset". The SC commission on February 9 had initiated suo motu proceedings and sought Bajwa's response by February 11 and also sought details about the incident from the Amritsar police. Bajwa could not appear before the commission on February 11 and now proceedings have been deferred for February 26. Before the high court, Bajwa's counsel Pradeep Virk submitted that commission chairperson Jasvir Singh Garhi was a personal friend of the minister and should not have taken suo motu notice of the alleged utterances. It was further submitted that the procedure prescribed under the Punjab State Commission for Scheduled Castes Act, 2004, has not been adhered to before issuing the show-cause notice and Garhi was personally biased against the petitioner. Without "application of mind, adopting the due process of law, issuing any notice to the petitioner and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the allegations levelled by the minister", Garhi directly took suo motu cognisance and decided to investigate the matter, the court was told. On the other hand, the government counsel asserted that the commission had the power to take suo motu notice of any complaint and the petition was premature, as the petitioner had challenged a show-cause notice. "The petitioner has appeared before the commission and has filed a short reply, thereby submitting to the jurisdiction of the commission," it was submitted. As far as allegations of bias were concerned, the government counsel told the court that it was for Garhi to explain and evidence was required to establish them. After hearing the parties, the court was of the prima facie view that the allegations of bias needed to be inquired into before the matter could proceed and for the purpose, the minister and Garhi ought to be heard. The court, while seeking response from Garhi and the minister by May 26, ordered that further proceedings pursuant to the impugned show-cause notice will remain stayed till the next date of hearing....