The Bombay Lawyers Association has written a letter to the chief justice of India P Sathasivam, expressing shock at the manner in which a Supreme Court bench, headed by justice CK Prasad, took away a matter listed before another three-judge bench and decided the matter itself.
The bench of justices Prasad and Pinaki Ghose took two minutes to decide a matter related to a Cidco plot that had been pending for 12 years. The bench, in January, passed suo motu orders tagging a Cidco golf course tender case to, allegedly, an unrelated criminal appeal it was hearing.
In February, the bench ruled in favour of the bidder who won 88 acres of public land at a throwaway price of Rs33 crore.
The association's letter, sent on Wednesday, was signed by 100 lawyers who want a committee to be formed to inquire into the allegations surrounding the passing of the order so that "faith of the common man is restored".
Advocates Ahmad Abdi and Jabbar Shaikh said they wrote the letter as the incident has brought disrepute to the highest institution of the country.
Before them, senior lawyer Dushyant Dave wrote a letter to the CJI questioning the propriety of the act by the bench, headed by justice Prasad.
The association's 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 [from] 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 has quoted John Marshall, former chief justice of US Supreme Court: "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 too had raised several questions. He termed the incident "disturbing" where a hearing was "inexplicably snatched from a three-judge bench authorised to hear it".
Wanting to know who informed the bench about the matter that never crossed its path, Dave asked if the order could have been passed without the presence of the counsels. Also, he questioned the accountability of the registry that lists matter for hearing before benches.
This is a matter that clearly demands "suo motu exercise of curative power" to remedy the gross abuse of process of court, Dave told the CJI.
Dave told dna he is still to get a reply.
The Bombay HC, on January 22, 2010, set aside the contract awarded to Mistry Constructions to develop an Eight Holes International Standard Golf Course and Country Club in Navi Mumbai spread over 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 before the Supreme Court
A bench of justices CK Prasad and Pinaki Ghose, in January and February 2014, passed suo motu orders, tagging the Cidco golf course tender case to an unrelated criminal appeal it was hearing.
When CU Singh, appearing in the criminal case, pointed out to the court that the matter were unrelated, the bench de-tagged the matter.
But despite de-tagging, 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 the merits. In the weekly list for February 18-20, it was listed at number 79 before a three-judge bench, headed by justice BS Chauhan.
On February 25, justice Prasad held that since none of the lawyers for Mistry or Cidco opposed Makhija's lawyers' plea to "unconditionally withdraw", it was accepted.
Cidco did not move the Supreme Court.
Allowing Mistry Constructions' appeal, the bench, headed by justice Prasad, said they have "spent huge amounts" and the project is old and Cidco is directed to "provide necessary assistance to the firm to complete the project without unnecessary delay".
){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}