larger Bench to take decision on issue

Following notices to 27 retired and sitting judges of Gujarat High Court for alleged concessional land allotment by Gujarat Government, the acting Chief Justice of Gujarat HC on Tuesday referred the matter to a larger Bench and come to a decision to frame a set of questions for the new Bench to look into.

The High Court also issued notice to the State Government after it admitted a public interest litigation challenging the allotment of residential plots to the judges at concessional rates. The alleged beneficiaries included a sitting and a retired Supreme Court judge, eight sitting Gujarat High Court judges, 15 former High Court judges and the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court as well as Orissa High Court.

The judges were given plots of 400 sq mts each apparently at concessional rates in the year 2007. The allotted plots are located near the Gujarat High Court building in Gota area on the affluent SG Highway in Ahmedabad.

Acting Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court VM Sahai initiated suo motu proceedings against 27 judges by issuing notices to them for allegedly accepting plots of land from the State Government at rates apparently lower than those prevailing in the market.

“Serious complaint has been made in the aforesaid letters and after deliberation with heavy heart, this suo motu PIl has been taken up. It involves judges of this court who are performing constitutional duties. This is an era of transparency where everything has to be before the public and no one can claim that they are above the law,” the court noted.  

The larger Bench would hear the matter with regard to whether the State Government has a policy to grant housing to the judges; whether any judge owns residential property in 8-km radius of present High Court; whether the local Government authority gave the land to judges for free or if any money was involved.

Meanwhile, the Advocate General Kamal Trivedi on Tuesday has requested the High Court to probe the matter entirety instead of just looking into the set of questions framed. Trivedi countered the charges of irregularities, stating that the allotment was done in accordance with the rules framed by the State Government.