The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed proceedings before the Gujarat high court in the case alleging irregularities in the allotment of 400 sq m residential plots at concessional rates in Ahmedabad to sitting and retired judges and sought a response from the state government.
A bench of the high court headed by acting Chief Justice V M Sahai had treated as PIL a letter from ex-judge B J Sethna, who had alleged irregularity in allotment of plots to sitting and retired judges of the HC at Nitibaug Cooperative Housing Society while complaining that he had not been allotted a plot despite a request.
Interestingly, state advo cate general Kamal Trivedi had told the bench of Justice Sahai and Justice R P Dolaria that “both members of the bench were personally interested in seeking some allotments and had personally conveyed to him to look into a favourable decision by the state government“.
Brushing aside Trivedi's objection to the propriety of Justice Sahai and Justice Dolaria hearing the matter, the HC bench on Monday issued notices to 27 judges who had been allotted plots. As per the allotment rules, the allottee was to pay at 50% rate for 330 sqm and at market rate for 70 sqm of each 400 sq m plot.
The HC had issued no tices to sitting SC judge A R Dave, former SC judge C K Thakker, chief justice of Bombay HC M S Shah, chief justice of Orissa HC D H Waghela and sitting judges of Gujarat HC Justice Jayant Patel, Justice M R Shah, Justice K S Javeri, Justice Anant S Dave, Justice S R Brahmbhatt, Justice Harsha Devani, Justice K M Thaker and Justice Rajesh H Shukla. Rest of the judges had retired from the Gujarat HC.
Challenging the order, a retired judge of the HC fac ng notice on Wednesday morning moved the SC hrough advocate Mahesh Agarwal. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India H L Dattu agreed for an urgent hearing.
Appearing for the retired udge, senior advocate Harish Salve said the proceedings nitiated in a tearing hurry by a bench headed by the act ng chief justice of the HC was vitiated by the allega tions by the state advocate general that the judges on the bench which converted the letter suo motu into a PIL lacked propriety to hear the matter as they had also made requests for allotment of plots to them.
`What is the tearing hurry of issuing notice on Monday , posting it on Tuesday and framing questions despite the respondents seeking time to respond to the PIL? Were the land allotments made yesterday? All these allotments were made between 2008 and 2010. So what is the tearing hurry ,“ Salve asked.
The bench of CJI Dattu and Justice P C Ghose and Justice A M Sapre lost no time in entertaining the retired judge's appeal but said there was no need to keep sit ting and retired judges as respondents and ordered their names to be deleted from the array of parties.
The bench stayed the proceedings before the Gujarat HC and sought response from the state government about the allotment of plots.It also allowed Gujarat High Court Advocates Association to become a party to the issue before the SC. However, it rejected advocate M L Sharma's request to become a party to the proceedings.
The SC also refused to make Justice Sethna a party to the proceedings. Justice Sethna had created a furore in January 2007 by allegedly hurling blows at his colleague P B Majmudar. Then CJI Y K Sabharwal had said the incident had dented the image of the judiciary .
