The bench ruled that it found it hard to believe that Joshi was unaware of the contents of the crucial file dated June 24, 1996 which was sent to him in August for his approval on the Vyas' project. The file dealt with the final options, including shifting of reservations, that were to be exercised to facilitate Vyas commence his project. Since only the chief minister, as theMinister of Urban Development had the powers to sanction a shifting of reservation, his department had asked him to give his `no objection' to the proposal. Joshi, had then, in Marathi noted, ``do according to the law, there is no objection''.

``In the light of this, if one reads the noting of the CM, it must be held that by that noting, the CM approved the departmental action and pursuant to the noting only was the reservation shifted... His conduct does indicate that he had pressurised officials to take an illegal action and this in our view was done with the object to shift reservation from a plot of land on which his son-in-law could construct a building,'' the bench ruled.

``It is not only we who are concluding that this was an order, but even the officials construed it as such and the green signal was given,'' Justice Srikrishna dictated. The bench also noted the argument presented by Joshi's counsel, Harish Salve, that the CM had not dealt with the final orders passed on 24 July 98 and it was doneby the Minister of State, Ravindra Mane. The bench said that the file though not signed by the CM was actually marked to the CM. ``It was only because a noting by the additional chief secretary of the CM saying the developer and the CM were related, was the file finally placed before the Minister of State,'' the bench said.

As regards to Mane, while the court accepted that the Minister of State did not have any personal interest in the case, it rapped him for ``obliging'' his senior. Mane's counsel, Madgholkar had in fact put on record that the MoS did not even known the relation between the developer and the CM. To this, the bench wondered why Mane did not react to the departmental note of 24 July, 1998 when the CM's chief secretary had remarked that the developer and the CM were related.

For the then Pune Municipal Commissioner, Ramanath Jha, while the court had a good word in that he was a ``conscientious officer and aware of legalities,'' there were also strictures. ``We are not very happy with theattitude of the commissioner...'' said the Division Bench, ``we would have expected him to have taken the precaution of protesting more vigorously if he was satisfied that what was being asked of him was illegal''.

Srikrishna on Joshi

ON THE AFFIDAVIT: When an affidavit is filed in court, we expect a public functionary of the rank of the chief minister to be absolutely frank and not obfuscate facts to mislead the court.

ON CONDUCT IN THE CASE: His conduct does indicate that he had pressurised officials to take illegal action and this was done with an object to shift reservation from a plot on which his son-in-law could construct his building.