In its plea, the CBI cited a Supreme Court order of April 11, 2011, which had directed that no court other than the apex court shall entertain any application relating to the case.
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed all proceedings in the Delhi High Court relating to 2G spectrum allocation scam which included pleas of former Telecom Minister A Raja, DMK MP Kanimozhi and corporate executives seeking quashing of charges against them.
"All proceedings pending before the Delhi High Court shall remain stayed," a bench of justices GS Singhvi and KS Radhakrishnan said.
The bench passed the order after CBI moved an application in this regard and cited the Supreme Court's April 11, 2011, order by which it had directed that no court other than the apex court shall entertain any application relating to the 2G case.
The court was informed that there were 20 petitions or applications pending before the high court after the filing of the charge sheets in the 2G case.
The bench issued notices and sought replies of various parties within six weeks on the CBI application.
"We have perused the nature of issues raised and the order of April 11, 2011 passed by this court. We deem it proper to take note of it and issue notice to concerned parties," the bench said while taking on record the list of pending cases provided by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate before the High Court.
Besides Raja and Kanimozhi, 12 other accused persons and telecom companies have moved the High Court against the framing of charges against them by the Special CBI court.
The CBI filed the application, a day after the apex court had expressed its displeasure that the Delhi High Court was hearing the matter relating to the 2G case despite its order restraining courts below the apex court from adjudicating issues linked to the case.
"Despite injunction the Delhi High Court has entertained petition relating to the 2G spectrum case. It is very surprising on the part of the behaviour of the high court," the court had said.
CBI counsel KK Venugopal had said the bench can pass an order and stay such proceedings.
The bench said an application can be filed by the CBI so that it can give a clear-cut order. "We will hear your application," it had said.
"We will make it clear that no court will entertain any petition (on the 2G case)," the bench had said after senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who is representing Essar Group in the case against them, sought clarification on the injunction.
Rohatgi had said that the legal right available to the affected parties cannot be taken away and one such right was to approach the high court.
He had said it was for Parliament to make or amend laws and the legal rights available cannot be denied.
"We cannot say anything for Parliament to amend laws. Law making is in their domain," the bench had observed.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}