Bombay Lawyers seek probe into Supreme Court bench meddling in Cidco case

The Bombay Lawyers Association has in a letter to Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam expressed its shock at the manner in which a Supreme Court bench headed by justice CK Prasad took away a matter already listed before another three-judge bench and decided the matter itself.

The bench of judges Prasad and Pinaki Ghose took just two minutes to decide on the matter pertaining to a Cidco plot that had been pending for 12 years. It passed suo motu orders in January 2014, tagging a Cidco golf course tender case to an unrelated criminal appeal it was hearing, the association has said.

Then in February 2014, the bench decided in favour of the winning bidder for 88 acres of public land that was allotted at a throwaway price of Rs33 crore.

The association stated in the letter, signed by 100 lawyers, that a committee be constituted to inquire into the allegations about the manner in which the order was passed, so that the "faith of the common man is restored".

Advocates Ahmad Abdi and Jabbar Shaikh said they had to write the letter as the incident brought disrepute to the highest institution of the country.

Earlier, senior lawyer Dushyant Dave had also written a letter to the Chief Justice of India questioning the propriety of the step taken by the division bench.

The association letter reads: "The common man is shocked and confused and seeks an answer: who is responsible for this and what steps shall be taken to stop such improper orders being passed? Time has come when we need to introspect whether our judicial machinery has lived up to the expectations. The trust and faith of common man must be maintained at any cost."

The letter quotes John Marshall, former chief justice of the United States, as saying, "Power of judiciary lies not in deciding cases, nor in imposing sentences, not in punishing for contempt, but in the trust, confidence, faith of the common man."

Dave questioned who informed the division bench about the matter that had never crossed its path. He also asked whether the order could have been passed without the presence of the counsels in the matter.

"Why was the bench headed by justice Prasad so keen to hear the land matter in such unnatural haste, in violation of judicial propriety and decorum? How did it learn of it? Could it have, suo motu, with any lawyer or party requesting its tagging, tag it? In any case, the matters were unrelated, as senior counsel CU Singh who appeared in the criminal case had informed justice Prasad, who agreed, but said the common factor was Cidco," Dave stated in his letter.

The senior counsel has also raised questions about the accountability of the registry, which lists matters for hearing before the benches.

This matter clearly demands "suo motu exercise of curative power" to remedy the gross abuse of process of court, Dave wrote to the Chief Justice of India. Dave told dna that he has not received any reply to his letter.




BOX

Cidco's golf course and country club project


The Bombay High Court, on January 22, 2010, set aside the contract awarded to Mistry Constructions to develop an 8-hole international standard golf course and country club in Navi Mumbai on 35.55 hectares.

While setting aside the contract, the court rapped Cidco for surreptitiously supporting Mistry Constructions and directed the authority to invite fresh bids.

Mistry Constructions challenged this order before the Supreme Court.

In January this year, a division bench of judges CK Prasad and Pinaki Ghose passed suo motu orders tagging the Cidco golf course tender case to an unrelated criminal appeal that it was hearing.

When counsel CU Singh, who was appearing in the criminal case, pointed out to the court that the matters were unrelated, the bench de-tagged the matter.

Yet, the bench allowed the losing bidder, Makhija Developers, to withdraw its petition on an oral plea by its lawyer Senthil Jagadeesan.

The appeal was listed for hearing on merits. In the weekly list for February 18-20, it was listed at number 79 before a three-judge bench headed by judge BS Chauhan.

On February 25, judge Prasad held that since none of the lawyers for Mistry or Cidco opposed Makhija's plea to "unconditionally withdraw"', it was accepted.

Cidco did not appeal in the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal by Mistry Constructions, the bench headed by judge Prasad said that the company had "spent huge amounts'" and the project was old, Cidco was directed to "provide necessary assistance to the firm to complete the project without unnecessary delay".