| Chief Justice of India: "Difficult to Detect Corruption in Indian Judcicary" |
Indian Judiciary Un-Masked |
Digvijay Mote: Investigator 867 Judges Scam |
|
||||||
|
Fruits of Contempt
:
Share Holders
"King-Pins or Dare-Devils out-of 867 Judges"
|
 |
|||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
CJ & KBJ: Date: 22-1-2003 WP01 W.P.No. 40994/2002 ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite prohibition to change the character and nature of the open space land, the respondents have started forming sites in the open space land measuring 195' X 200' reserved for temple. Issue notice to respondents 1, 3 and 4 returnable in two weeks. Learned Government Advocate to take notice for respondent No.2. In the meanwhile respondent No.4 society not to change the character of the land described in I.A.No.1/2003.
CJ & KBJ: Date: 22-1-2003 WP 02.1 W.P.No. 40994/2002
CJ & KBJ: Date: 18-6-2003. WP02 W.P. 40994/2002 Order Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that despite the order dated 22-1-2003 the civic amenity sites are being sold by the 4th Respondent-Society and in this way it is changing the character. The Petitioners are directed to file the details of such sites, which have been sold in violation. 2. Respondents 3 and 4 are served, but not appeared despite service. Learned Standing Counsel for the B.D.A., and the learned Government Advocate are present, but no counter has been filed. 3. It is necessary to ascertain the facts. Therefore, Respondent No.4/society is directed to submit a copy of the map filed to B.D.A., to this court and a list of transfer of civic amenity sites, if any, within one month. Respondent No. 1/B.D.A., shall also submit its report within two months. 4. The interim order dated 22-1-2003 shall continue and in addition it is also made clear that during the pendency of this petition, the society shall not transfer any civic amenity sites as shown in plan submitted to B.D.A., until further orders. In the meanwhile the respondents can file their counter. put up after two months.
CJ
& KBJ: Date: 27-2-2004
WP03 Order Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 wish to file their reply within five weeks Post after six weeks.
CJ & KBJ: Date: 9-7-2004 WP04 W.P.No. 40994/2002 ORDER 1. By the order dated 22-1-2003 this court directed Respondent No.4 society not to change the character of the land described in I.A.No.1/2003. Thereafter by the order dated 18-6-2003 it was made clear that the society shall not transfer any civic amenity sites as shown in the plan submitted to the B.D.A. until further orders. However, on 27-2-2004, the case was adjourned for filing reply. 2. Now the Bench is formed for this case and to-day this case has come up for orders. Respondent No. 4-society has filed its statement of objections. Sri.B.V.Acharya, learned counsel for the 4th respondent-society submits that initially the society filed a plan along with an application to the B.D.A. for its approval. Thereafter, as the jurisdiction was with the CMC, Yelahanka, the plan was filed in CMC by the 4th respondent-society and the same was approved and the sites have been sold accordingly. He further submits that no civic amenity site was sold. 3. The first respondent B.D.A has also filed the counter. It is stated that in the B.D.A meeting held on 16-11-1992 vide subject No.503/92 it was resolved to approve the private layout subject to certain conditions. it is stated that despite the letters dated 8-12-1993 and 24-2-1994 the 4th respondent-society did not comply with the letters. NOC was not given as no layout plan was filed. Sri.C.B.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the B.D.A. submits that despite the order dated 18-6-2003 no copy of the layout plan said to have been filed to the B.D.A. or the list of transfer of civic amenity sites have been furnished by the 4th respondent-society. 4. Respondent No.3-CMC, Yelahanka, has filed its counter. It is stated that on formation of City Municipal Council, Yelahanka, Judicial Layout was included in its limits and on receiving the form, the 3rd respondent approved the layout plan submitted by respondent No.4-society on 22-5-1996 and roads have been formed. It is also stated that civic amenity sites as they stood in May 1996 continued to remain the same till to-day. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is very strange that despite the submission of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent-society that originally the plan was submitted to the B.D.A., the BDA denies that it has received the layout plan. He further submits that it is strange that the BDA has taken a plea that only application has been filed whereas he can substantiate by filing number of documents wherein reference is made to the plan said to have been submitted to the BDA. 6. It is also seen that a contempt petition in CCC No. 87/2004 is also filed for violation of the interim order dated 18-6-2003 despite the service of order and as alleged about 30 civic amenity sites had been alienated in violation of the order as apparent from encumbrance certificate Annexure-C series and the list filed by the complainant and therefore it is necessary to see both the plans i.e., one said to had been submitted to the BDA at the first instance while forming the layout and the other one approved by the CMC Yelahanka. The plan said to have been filed to the BDA is in the writ petition and the other plan said to have been approved by the CMC has not been produced either by the 4th respondent-society or by the 3rd respondent CMC. Therefore, it is necessary that respondent No.4-society and Respondent No.3-CMC shall file certified copy of the plan. They are also free to substantiate their respective claims on factual aspect by 9-8-2004 and exchange the counters. In the meanwhile, the direction issued in the writ petition not to transfer any civic amenity site will continue, and we further direct not to alienate any civic amenity site to any person, as per the alleged map approved by the CMC Yelahanka. It is also made clear that any construction made on any civic amenity site, as per the map, here onwards would be at the risk and responsibility of the person making such construction. Post this case on 19-8-2004. On that day, the B.D.A. Secretary and the President of the 4th Respondent-Society shall be personally present in court.
RMRJ
& HBJ: Date: 19-11-2004
WP05 Order By order dated 9-7-2004, this Court had directed the 3rd respondent -CMC and the 4th respondent-society to produce the certified copy of the plan sanctioned by the CMC which the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-society submits is complied with by filing the same along with an application. The Photostat copy of the plan, produced, is not legible and we are unable to identify the area demarcated as civic amenity sites. The 4th respondent is directed to produce the plan which is legible and in which the civic amenity sites are identifiable. The 4th respondent shall also make available a copy of the said plan to the 1st respondent-BDA who shall, keeping in mind the Comprehensive Development Plan of the said area and zonal regulations, file a statement as to the areas notified as public, semi public residential park etc., The Registry is directed to place on record the original file in W.P.35837/1994 along with connected writ petitions disposed off on 12th October, 1995. Call on 10-12-2004.
RMRJ
& HBJ: Date:11-03-05
WP06 Order Sri S.G. Bhat, learned Councel for respondent No.3 filed additional statement of objections, dated 11-03-05. Petitioner is permitted to file rejoinder, if any.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Chief Justice of India: "Difficult to Detect Corruption in Indian Judcicary" |
CJ & KBJ: Date: 29/1/2004 CCC01 C.C.C.87/2004 Order The learned Counsel for the complainants submits that despite the interim order dated 22-1-2003 and 18-6-2003, passed in W.P. 40994/2002 and service of copy of the interim order dated 18-6-2003 on 2-7-2003 on the Secretary/Manager, the Society has violated and alienated about 30 civic amenity sites, which is apparent from the copies of the encumbrance certificates at Annexure-C [series] and list-Annexure-D. Issue notice to respondent No.6 as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated, returnable in six weeks. The learned counsel for the complainants submits that he does not seek any relief against respondents 2 and 3. Accordingly, respondents 2 and 3 deleted at the risk of the learned counsel. Cause title to be amended accordingly.
CJ
& KBJ: Date: 19/8/2004
CCC02 Order In pursuance of the order dated 9/7/2004 Sri Vidyashankar, Commissioner-B.D.A who took charge one and a half month back, is present in court. Sri C. Shivalingaiah, President of the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society, is present submitted a plan to the B.D.A. before it was transferred to the jurisdiction of the City Municipal Council Yelahanka. The map contains a portion of land which was not acquired. Sri Sharief, Commissioner The City Municipal Council, is also present in the court though voluntarily. He submits that after transfer of the jurisdiction they have granted permission as per law. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that despite the order dated 22-1-2003 not to change the character of civic amenity sites, the same have been sold in violation of the rules. Under the circumstances, the parties are directed to complete their pleadings in the form of counter affidavits. The personal attendance of the Commissioner B.D.A, President-Employees House Building Co-operative society and the Commissioner C.M.C., Yelahanka, is dispensed with for the present. However, they may file their respective replies in the Contempt petition mentioning the factual position. The question for consideration is whether the jurisdiction of the B.D.A. ceases after the area is transferred to the C.M.C., Yelahanka, as per the new Act. The question and its effect can be considered with the factual position whether the civic amenity sites have been sold or not, after hearing the parties and after completion of pleadings. Post after one month.
CJ & KBJ : Date: 14/10/2004 CCC03 C.C.C No. 87/2004 C/W W.P.No.40994/2002 ORDER It is stated despite time granted pleadings are not complete and even who sites were given including temple site and civic amenity site. I may mention as Chief Justice, that I was eligible and offered a site at the initial stage as well as now. With thanks I have declined. However, the counsel for the society submits that they will consider the cases of the judges who are appointed first and have not been given the site, as it is reported that some of the judges who were appointed later were given and allotted sites even from the civic amenity. In reply to this Mr. Ravivarma Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are not concerned with the allotment of sites to the judges. The main grievance is that the society has allotted sites from civic amenity sites to the persons in violation of the Rule and also the order of this court and no reply has been filed by R-4 till date. We cannot go into the question of fact or investigate them at this stage. Moreover, I am demitting my office on 19-10-2004. The pleadings are not complete. Therefore the case is adjourned by one month for filing the reply by the society.
RMRJ & HBJ Date: 17-12-2004 CCC04 CCC 87/ 2004 C/W WP 40994/02 Order Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate that the 4th respondent - Society should be directed to place on record the following particulars: [1] The number of public amenity sites, parks, stadium, playground, hospital, temple, schools, educational institutions etc., as earmarked, both, in the plan furnished to the BDA for its approval at the earliest point of time and in the alleged modified plan said to be sanctioned by the CMC, Yelahanka; [2] The percentage of the total areas set apart for the civic amenity sites, roads, drainage etc., other than the residential sites, both, in the plan submitted to the BDA and the plan said to be sanctioned by CMC Yelahanka; [3] The total number of residential sites formed out of the areas earmarked as above together with the particulars of the allotees of the said sites and the dates of execution of the deeds of conveyance etc., [4] The 4th respondent shall, prepare and submit a plan demarcating the areas set apart for civic amenity and other public amenities, as mentioned supra, as it is in existence today. It is borne out from records that this court by order dated 18th January, 2003 had directed the 4th respondent-Society to submit a copy of the plan submitted to the BDA as also the list of transfer of civic amenity sites, if any, within a month. We find that there has been no compliance of the said order. The 4th respondent is directed to comply with this order as well. Sri M.Sivappa, learned counsel for the 4th respondent seeks four weeks time to furnish the above particulars and comply with the directions of this directions of this court. It is made clear that four weeks time granted is as a last opportunity to the 4th respondent to place on record the relevant material necessary for decision-making.. Call on 21-01-2005.
RMRJ & HBJ: Date: 28/1/2005 &n |
