To Shri Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam,
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India,
Dear Chief Justice,
I am addressing this letter in respect of an extremely “disturbing” matter which transpired in
the Supreme Court yesterday. Although it involves a judicial order, I’m constrained to
address this communication in view of the enormity of the possible damage to the Institution
of the Supreme Court and the public interest.
The reason for addressing this communication is the serious “disquiet” that it has generated
amongst the Members of the Bar, which I became privy to while having coffee in the
Canteen. My attention was drawn to the extraordinary developments which are unparalleled,
reflecting gross abuse of judicial power to cause damage to public running into an
Civil Appeal Nos. 9454-9455 of 2010, titled Mistry Construction P. Ltd. v. Makhija
Developers P. Ltd. & Ors., were shown at Sl. No. 79 before Court No. 4, presided by the
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Chauhan along with Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameshwar and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal in the Weekly List No. 7 of 2014 from 18th
February to 20th
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7232/2013, titled Neera Saggi and Anr. v.
Avinash Parshuram Naik and Anr. was before the Bench presided by the Hon’ble Justice
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad who had issued notice on 05.09.2013. When the aforesaid matter
came up for further hearing on 20.01.2014 the Court passed following order:
“list the following matter along with Civil Appeal No. 9454-3455 of 2013 on
I was told by Mr. Pratap Venugopal, and Mr. Anirudh P. Mayee. The Ld. Advocates
appearing for the parties that none of the parties had mentioned about the Civil Appeal Nos.
9454-9455 of 2010, much less as having a bearing on the SLP (Crl). 7232/2013. They
however informed me that, the Hon’ble Presiding Judge on his own stated that according to
him there was a similar matter pending and accordingly the Order was made.
Clearly the order had recorded incorrect Appeal Numbers, and therefore when the matter
came up on 29.01.2014, the SLP (Crl.) 7232/2014 was not taken up for hearing and was
It appears that on 20.02.2014 the SLP (Crl.) 7232/2013 was taken up “suo moto” not being
on Board, and the Court passed the following order:
“By order dated 20.01.2014, this Petition was directed to be listed on
29.01.2014 along with Civil Appeal No. 9454-9455/2013.
Due to inadvertent mistake, the year of the Civil Appeal No. 9454-9455 was
shown as 2013 instead of 2010.
Resulting thereof, these Civil Appeals could not be listed along with this
Petition on 29.01.2014.
List this Petition along with Civil Appeal No. 9454-9455 of 2010 on
25.02.2014 at the top of the Board subject to overnight part-heard”
The matters were listed yesterday, and the Bench presided by the Hon’ble Justice
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, (Court No. 9 Item No. 2 in the Cause List dated 25.02.2014) at the
outset itself accepted the submission of Shri C.U. Singh, Senior Advocate, that the Civil
Appeal No, 9454-9455 of 2010 was not connected with the SLP (Crl.) 7232/2013 and passed
an independent order in the SLP (Crl.) 7232/2013. However it appears that despite there
being no connection, the Civil Appeal No. 9454-9455 of 2010 was taken up, and in the
absence of any effective representation from CIDCO, a statutory body, the Civil Appeal
disposed off by an order dictated in open Court, in presence of many lawyers sitting in the
Court, and as informed to me, the Court allowed the Writ Petitioner before the High Court to
withdraw the Writ Petition apparently in view of the settlement between Mistry Constructions
P. Ltd. and Makhija Developers. P. Ltd. which was earlier rejected by Court on 25.04.2013.
Result of this that the judgment of the High Court is wished away without Debate and with
the same perish the High Court’s damning findings and directions for a re-tender. So Mistry
gets the tender and 35 Hectares of prime land for a song. [A copy of the order dated
25.02.2014 has not been uploaded on the internet and it is difficult to state the exact text of
Later Mr. C.U. Singh informed me of the above by a text message
“My Dear Dushyant,
This is to confirm that when Item 2 in Court 9 was called out
today, I pointed out to the court that the Civil Appeal which was tagged
with the Criminal Appeal in which I was appearing had no connection
at all with my matter.
The Ld. Presiding Judge, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad J, immediately said
that they too had seen it was unconnected and that the only thing
common was that CIDCO was a party. He asked me to proceed with my
matter which I argued and succeeded in. I assumed the matter stood de-
tagged and left the Court. I’m not aware of what happened thereafter,
but if the hearing of the Civil Appeal proceeded, even though it was
found to be wrongly tagged, then it’s a matter of disquiet. I will be
happy to place these facts in a formal letter
Pertinently, in the year 2013 a similar attempt to dispose of the Civil Appeal in a cavalier
fashion was made 25.04.2013 when a Bench comprising of Three Hon’ble Judges held:
“On mentioning, let this matter be taken on Board.
Since the Parties are interested to settle this matter and they have filed terms of
settlement, let this matter be listed “For Orders” next Thursday (02.05.2013),
fairly at the top of the list”
Subsequently however on 02.05.2013 the Bench declined to accept the compromise, and held
“I.A. No. 5-6 have been filed on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondent
No. 1 M/s Makhija Developers Private Ltd., for disposal of the Appeals in
terms of the Compromise recorded between the said parties.
Having regard to the fact that the present appeals are pending against
certain findings of the High Court, we are not inclined to accept the
settlement or the compromise arrived at between the Appellant and
Respondent No. 1 and the applications are, therefore, dismissed.
Let the appeals themselves be listed for hearing at an early date, if possible,
within three months from the date the appeals are ready for hearing”
That matter raises following serious questions which need to enquired into in depth.
1. How did the Bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
become aware of the Civil Appeal when that matter had never crossed its path?
2. Who Could have informed the said bench about the Civil Appeals?
3. Can on Bench order tagging of a matter pending before another Bench without being
requested by any of the Counsels of the Parties or without going into the subject
matter of the two matters to establish some indentity?
4. Even assuming that Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasad was inclined that Civil Appeal 9454-
9455 of should have been tagged with2010SLP (Crl.) 7232/2013, should not have the
SLP (Crl.) 7232/2013 been tagged with the pending Civil Appeal 9454-9455 of 2010?
5. Could the Bench presided by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad passed a
suo moto order and without Counsels presence on 20.02.2014?
6. Whether the Registry could have at all tagged a Civil Appeal listed for hearing before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Chauhan without an order from that Bench?
7. Whether the Registry has complied with the order passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad after obtaining approval from Hon’ble The Chief Justice of
India in terms “The Supreme Court of India-A Handbook of Practice and Procedure”
and the procedures prescribed therein?
8. Whether the Bench presided over by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr.
Prasad upon being pointed out on 25.02.2014 by Mr. C.U. Singh, Ld. Senior
Advocate that the two matters were not connected in any manner and having accepted
the submission, ought not to have sent back the Civil Appeals to the Bench before
they were listed?
9. Why was the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad so keen to hear the Civil
Appeals in such an unnatural manner and in violation of judicial propriety and
10. Should the Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad not have awaited
the appearance by CIDCO, a statutory authority, especially when the matter involved
land worth several hundred crores and strong judgment of the Bombay High Court?
11. Is the judgment and order pronounced on 25.02.2014 not illegal, coram non judice
and violative of basic principles of exercise of judicial power and liable to recalled
12. Should the Supreme Court not put in place fool proof Rules to ensure that the judicial
abuse witnessed in allcocation, especially on mentioning to avoid forum shopping in
interest of justice?
13. Should the Registry not be held accountable?
I must confess that there is a continuous and strong feeling amongst young members of the
Bar that these kind of machinations are hurting their future and they are getting increasingly
despondent. I feel that the institution owes a lot to them.
The events reflect a disturbing trend witnessed in the Supreme Court over the last couple of
years, and has seriously shaken the faith in the Institution in some of us who respect and love
the Institution immensely.
This a matter which clearly demands a “suo moto exercise of the curative power” by the
Supreme Court to remedy “gross abuse of the process of the court” and I would request you
as the Chief Justice of India to act forthwith to restore the dignity of the Court and to prevent
some of us from losing faith in the Institution completely.
I’m taking the liberty of circulating this letter to other Hon’ble Judges of this Court to
appraise them of the matter.