LexTARAK SINGH AND ANR. versus JYOTI BASU AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..,. .. A TARAK SINGH AND ANR. v. JYOTI BASU AND ORS. NOVEMBER 19, 2004 B [S.N. VARIAVA AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] Allotment of Government land-From discretionary quota of Chief Minister-To a High Court Judge on his application when matter regarding the land was subjudice before him-The matter was throughout kept with C the judge as part-heard until his retirement-Validity of allotment-Held : The allotment liable to be cancelled-The Judge misused his judicial function as liveries to accomplish his personal interest-His private interest pitted against a public interest-He has betrayed the trust reposed in him by the people-Integrity is the hallmark of judicial discipline-Judicial ·. D Discipline. E Writ Petition in the form of Police Interest Litigation was filed challenging allotment of Government Land in Salt Lake City, Calcutta from the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister, and praying for quashing of the allotment. In the original petition, the allottees of the land were not arrayed as party respondents. In application for impleadment of allottee-respondents respondent No. 24, a retired Calcutta High Court Judge was permitted to be impleaded and in respect of other allottees the application was dismissed. F Allegation against respondent-Judge was that when he was sitting Judge in the Calcutta High Court, C.O. No. 7553 (W) of 1986, a case regarding masterplan in Salt Lake City was listed before him on 20.6.1986. On the same day he made an application before the Chief Minister for allotment of a plot of land in Salt Lake City. By an order dated 8.6.1987, he injuncted further allotment of any land in the Salt G Lake City and by a subsequent order dated 11.6.1987 allowed the Chief Minister to make allotment of plot in the area from his own quota. By order dated 17.6.1987 case was directed to be listed on 16. 7.1987 but on that date no bearing took place in the case. Respondent-Judge on the same day mad~ another application to the Chief Minister. As a result H allotment order was passed by the Chief Minister on 24.7.1987 in his 176 T ARAK SINGH v. JYOTI BASU 177 favour. Formal allotment thereof was made on 16.10.1987. A Respondent No. 24, pursuant to his being impleaded·by this Court, filed two affidavits. In his first affidavit he did not mention about his application dated 16.7.1987, while in the subsequent supplementary affidavit explained the omission as bonajide. As per order of this Court, B High Court furnished the Cause Lists pertaining to the case, which revealed that the case was listed before respondent-Judge after 16. 7.1987 on 14 occasions and as per further information, on all the above dates and throughout till his retirement, the matter was kept part-heard. Defence of respondent-Judge was that there was no nexus between C the orders dated 8.6.1987 and 11.6.1987 and the allotment made on 16.10.1987, and the same was only a co-incidence; that he never kept the matter part-heard; that the case before him was not concerned with allotment of land in question, but with regard to violation of Master Plan; and that proceedings indicated that the matter was taken up (or D hearing on 17.6.1987 and that on that date it was not kept part-heard. Allowing the petition against respondent No. 24 and dismissing qua other respondents, the Court HELD: 1.1. The respondent-Judge has mis-used his divine judicial duty as liveries to accomplish his personal ends. He &as betrayed the trust reposed in him by the people. The matter could have been different if the respondent-Judge got allotment from the Chief Minister's quota simpliciter like any other citizen. (188-C] E F 1.2. The orders dated 8.6.1987 and 11.6.1987 and the allotment in favour of respondent-Judge cannot be termed as coincidence. There is undoubtedly an unholy nexus in between the passing of the judicial order and granting order of allotment. It cannot be said that CO No. 7553(W) of 1986 which was listed for hearing before respondent No. 24 on 20.6.1986 was not concerned with the allotment of land under the G discretionary quote of the Government/Chief Minister. The plea that no order/proceeding, sent by the High Court, would indicate that the matter was taken up for hearing on 17.6.1987 and the order sheet dated 17.6.1987 does not show any direction to keep the matter as part-heard, ·;s contrary to the records namely, the Cause Lists sent by the High Court. The H 178 SUPREME COURT REPO
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.