Return
to Story Page
To print: Select File and then Print from your
browser's menu
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE
MUMBAI, MARCH 6: The long-awaited judgement in the much-publicised Girish Vyas case, where former chief minister Manohar Joshi faces charges of misuse of power to favour his son-in-law, began at the Bombay High Court today. However, the judges halted the dictation of their ruling abruptly when they found an anomaly in the date on which the owner of the plot of land which was dereserved had met Minister of State for Urban Development. The judges also found no documents about a reference to the land owner making a representation to the minister.
The division bench of Justice B N Srikrishna and Justice S S Parkar is adjudicating on two petitions filed by a Pune journalist Vijay Kumbhar and Pune corporator Nitin Jagtap, who have accused former the chief minister (who also held the Urban Development portfolio) of committing illegalities to accommodate his son-in-law Girish Vyas's multi-storey building complex on a plot reserved for a primary school. The dictation of the judgement will continue on Monday.
Thebench began dictating the judgement after having heard the case continuously from February 8 to March 4. The dictation ended when the bench was dealing with the facts and background of the case and none of the counsels in the court could answer the judges' query about the various meetings that the owner of Plot No 110 at Prabhat Road, Pune, had with Minister of State for Urban Development Ravindra Mane. In the papers submitted, one of the department under-secretaries has referred to the appeal of January 19, 1996. However, there were no corresponding minutes of any meeting on this day in the files. Justice Srikrishna inquired about the date since the scheduled meeting on this date was postponed to January 22, 1996. The appeal of the owner of shift a reservation of a primary school from this plot had been made on November 20, 1995.
``Either the official has made a mistake (since the next meeting was on 22.1.96) or there is something sinister about this date,'' Justice Srikrishna remarked.
However, therewas no state government official in the courtroom to explain the anomaly. ``We told the advocate-general that if he is not able to remain present, at least some other state counsel would be present,'' the judge observed.
In his earlier observations regarding the minutes of the meetings at the state secretariat pertaining to this case, Justice Srikrishna had noted, ``The appeal of the owner (for shifting the reservation) was not made to the state government but to the Minister of State for Urban Development.''
Justice Srikrishna also added that the letter had no stamp to show that it had been received by the department and inferred that it was ``handed over directly to the minister of state''.
``What transpired between the state government department and the applicants does not appear to be clear in the files. Except for the affidavits of the minister of state - that meetings and discussions preceded the meeting of February 3, 1996, - none of the affidavits of the state, the Pune Municipal Corporation orthe city engineers of PMC throws light on what happened between the two meetings of January 22, 1996 and February 3, 1996,'' Justice Srikrishna said.
The two meetings are crucial since at the first meeting, the state Urban Development Department had expressed the opinion that there were no chances of removing the reservations, while the second meeting discussed options for a compromise.
Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------
This story was printed from Net Express located at http://www.expressindia.com. Net Express provides a portal to India, with news from The Indian Express and The Financial Express along with sites on travel and tourism, the entertainment industry, the power sector, the environment and much more.
------------------------------------------------------------