9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 was filed for impleadment of respondent Nos. 8 to 38. However, by our order dated 13.11.2003, we allowed only the impleadment of respondent No. 24 - Justice B.P. Banerjee as party respondent The order reads: "Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel started his arguments at 10.35 A.M. and concluded at 11.15 A.M. Application to join Justice B.P. Banerjee (retired) as a party respondent to the Writ Petition is allowed. Reply, if any, be filed within six weeks from the date of service. I.A. No. 2 stands disposed of with no further or other order. The High Court of Calcutta to forward to this Court papers and proceedings in CO No. 7553(W) of 1986 titled Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Association and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. including all order sheets. The High Court to also inform this Court whether CO No. 15381 of 1984 has been disposed of and if not at what stage it is. The Government to produce all relevant files pertaining to the allotment of a plot to Justice B.P. Banerjee (retired) and to state on affidavit whether there is any policy decision regarding allotment of plots to Judges, if so, to produce that policy decision. List these matters after eight wee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hief Minister to make allotment of plot in Salt Lake City Area from its own Quota according to his own discretion. Let the plain copy of this order duty countersigned by an Officer of this Court be given to the Learned Advocates for the parties appearing." On 17.6.1987 following order was passed. "Let the application for taking additional ground and acceptance of additional evidence filed in Court today be kept in record. Let the affidavit in opposition, if any, to the said application affirmed by Sudhir Chandra De on June 16, 1987, if any, be filed within three weeks from date, reply if any, one week thereafter and let the application come up for hearing on July 16, 1987 at 2 p.m." (emphasis supplied) 8. No hearing had taken place on 16.7.1987 as ordered. No order was also passed in the order sheet on the other hand Justice B.P. Banerjee again wrote a letter to the Chief Minister. The letter dated 16th July, 1987 is reproduced in extenso:- "Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee Dated the 16th July, 1987 To Shri Jyoti Basu Hon'ble Chief Minister Of the State of West Bengal Writers' Building, Calcutta Dear Sir, This is to inform you ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on the same day also the matter was listed before Justice Banerjee. Formal allotment of plot of land bearing No. FD-429 measuring 4 Cottahs in Salt Lake City, Calcutta was made on 16.10.1987 and till his retirement in 1998, the matter was kept by Justice B.P. Banerjee. 12. The facts, as recited aforesaid, speak for themselves. The facts speak volumes that the learned Judge has misused his judicial function as liveries to obtain personal interest is clearly discernable. 13. We will now proceed to deal with the counter filed by respondent No. 24 - Justice Banerjee. As already noticed, respondent No. 24 filed two counter affidavits - first affidavit on 16th January, 2004 and supplementary affidavit on 16th April, 2004. The defence of respondent No. 24 is detailed in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed on 16.1.2004. To appreciate the controversy in proper perspective, paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit is quoted in extenso: "It is submitted that there was no nexus between the orders dated 8.6.87 and 11.6.87 and the allotment made in favour of this deponent on 14.10.87. It was merely an accident or a mere coincidence that the allotment was made by the Government after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicial order and granting order of allotment. 15. In the supplementary affidavit filed on 16.4.2004, respondent No. 24 has stated that writ petition being CO No. 7553(W) of 1986 was never kept by him as part-heard. Paragraphs 9.1 and 92 of the counter affidavit are reproduced: "9.1 The deponent never kept the Writ Petition being C.O. No. 7553(W) of 1986 as part heard, so that the matter could not be taken up by any other Court The Ld. Single Judge in the case of Tarak Singh v. Jyoti Basu has erroneously recorded the submission of the counsel for Mr. Tarak Singh, that the deponent had kept the matter part heard. The said submission is contrary to the facts as also the records of the case. 9.2 It is submitted that when C.O. No. 7553(W) of 1986 came up for hearing on 17.6.1987, the matter was adjourned since Misc. Applications were moved for taking additional Grounds and additional evidences. The deponent issued directions for filing affidavits as usual and listed the said applications for hearing on 16.7.1987. However, the said matter did not come up for hearing on the same date or thereafter." (Emphasis supplied) 16. Undoubtedly, the averments in the aforesaid two paragraph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted by the High Court, would show that from 20.7.1987 till 27.8.1987, it was kept part-heard and the file of the case was kept with respondent No. 24, till he retired in 1998. 20. It is also contended by Mr. Ganguli that a large number of Judges of High Court and Supreme Court have also been allotted plots in Salt Lake City under the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister and it will be unfair to single out respondent No. 24 for meting out a different treatment. At the time of hearing of this writ petition, we requested the learned Senior counsel to inform us whether any other Judge or Judges obtained the allotment order from the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister by compromising his judicial duties, we would also proceed against such allottee. He, however, was unable to receive any instructions in this behalf. It is trite, unequals cannot be treated equally. 21. It must be grasped that judicial discipline - is self discipline. The responsibility is self responsibility. Judicial discipline is an inbuilt mechanism inherent in the system itself Because of the position that we occupied and the enormous power we wield, no other authority can impose a discipline on us. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as liveries to accomplish his personal ends. He has betrayed the trust reposed in him by the people. To say the least, this is bad. The matter could have been different if the learned Judge got allotment from the Chief Minister's quota simpliciter like any other citizen. 24. In the back-drop of the facts and circumstances, as recited above, we are of the view that the conduct of the learned Judge is beyond condonable limits. We are aware that the order, we propose to pass, no doubt is painful, but we have to perform a painful duty to instill public confidence in the Judiciary. It is a case where a private interest is pitted against a public interest. It is now well-settled principle of law that in such cases the latter must prevail over the former. Consequently, the order dated 24.7.1987 passed by the Chief Minister and the formal allotment order dated 16.10.1987 allotting plot No. FD 429 measuring 4 Cottahs in Salt Lake City in favour of respondent No. 24 - Justice B.P. Banerjee are hereby quashed and cancelled. The plot shall stand vested with the Government. 25. In the course of hearing of this petition we had requested the learned Senior counsel, appearing for respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
