TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 628
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re not arrayed as party respondents. LA No. 2 was filed for impleadment of respondent Nos. 8 to 38. However, by our order dated 13.11.2003, we allowed only the impleadment of respondent No. 24 - Justice B.P. Banerjee as party respondent The order reads: "Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel started his arguments at 10.35 A.M. and concluded at 11.15 A.M. Application to join Justice B.P. Banerjee (retired) as a party respondent to the Writ Petition is allowed. Reply, if any, be filed within six weeks from the date of service. I.A. No. 2 stands disposed of with no further or other order. The High Court of Calcutta to forward to this Court papers and proceedings in CO No. 7553(W) of 1986 titled Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Association and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. including all order sheets. The High Court to also inform this Court whether CO No. 15381 of 1984 has been disposed of and if not at what stage it is. The Government to produce all relevant files pertaining to the allotment of a plot to Justice B.P. Banerjee (retired) and to state on affidavit whether there is any policy decision regarding allotment of plots to Judges, if so, to p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....87 at 2 p.m. In the meantime the interim order passed on June 8, 1987 is varied to the extent that the said order will not prevent the Chief Minister to make allotment of plot in Salt Lake City Area from its own Quota according to his own discretion. Let the plain copy of this order duty countersigned by an Officer of this Court be given to the Learned Advocates for the parties appearing." On 17.6.1987 following order was passed. "Let the application for taking additional ground and acceptance of additional evidence filed in Court today be kept in record. Let the affidavit in opposition, if any, to the said application affirmed by Sudhir Chandra De on June 16, 1987, if any, be filed within three weeks from date, reply if any, one week thereafter and let the application come up for hearing on July 16, 1987 at 2 p.m." (emphasis supplied) 8. No hearing had taken place on 16.7.1987 as ordered. No order was also passed in the order sheet on the other hand Justice B.P. Banerjee again wrote a letter to the Chief Minister. The letter dated 16th July, 1987 is reproduced in extenso:- "Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was kept part-heard throughout till the Judge retired in 1998. 11. Curiously enough, on 24.7.1987, the Chief Minister passed an order allotting a plot of land in favour of Justice B.P. Banerjee from his discretionary quota in Salt Lake City, in which the name of Justice Banerjee appeared at Sl. No. 1, and on the same day also the matter was listed before Justice Banerjee. Formal allotment of plot of land bearing No. FD-429 measuring 4 Cottahs in Salt Lake City, Calcutta was made on 16.10.1987 and till his retirement in 1998, the matter was kept by Justice B.P. Banerjee. 12. The facts, as recited aforesaid, speak for themselves. The facts speak volumes that the learned Judge has misused his judicial function as liveries to obtain personal interest is clearly discernable. 13. We will now proceed to deal with the counter filed by respondent No. 24 - Justice Banerjee. As already noticed, respondent No. 24 filed two counter affidavits - first affidavit on 16th January, 2004 and supplementary affidavit on 16th April, 2004. The defence of respondent No. 24 is detailed in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed on 16.1.2004. To appreciate the controversy in proper perspective,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed on this date, instead he had written a letter to the Chief Minister for allotment of plot of land and the order was passed by the Chief Minister in his favour on 24.7.1987. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be termed as coincidence. There is undoubtedly an unholy nexus in between the passing of the judicial order and granting order of allotment. 15. In the supplementary affidavit filed on 16.4.2004, respondent No. 24 has stated that writ petition being CO No. 7553(W) of 1986 was never kept by him as part-heard. Paragraphs 9.1 and 92 of the counter affidavit are reproduced: "9.1 The deponent never kept the Writ Petition being C.O. No. 7553(W) of 1986 as part heard, so that the matter could not be taken up by any other Court The Ld. Single Judge in the case of Tarak Singh v. Jyoti Basu has erroneously recorded the submission of the counsel for Mr. Tarak Singh, that the deponent had kept the matter part heard. The said submission is contrary to the facts as also the records of the case. 9.2 It is submitted that when C.O. No. 7553(W) of 1986 came up for hearing on 17.6.1987, the matter was adjourned since Misc. Applications were moved for taking....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es not show any direction to keep the matter as part-heard. This submission is also contrary to the records, namely, the Cause Lists sent by the High Court. The matter was ordered to be listed for hearing on 16.7.1987 was admitted by him. However, no order was passed on that day for the reasons best known to the learned Judge. The Cause Lists, submitted by the High Court, would show that from 20.7.1987 till 27.8.1987, it was kept part-heard and the file of the case was kept with respondent No. 24, till he retired in 1998. 20. It is also contended by Mr. Ganguli that a large number of Judges of High Court and Supreme Court have also been allotted plots in Salt Lake City under the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister and it will be unfair to single out respondent No. 24 for meting out a different treatment. At the time of hearing of this writ petition, we requested the learned Senior counsel to inform us whether any other Judge or Judges obtained the allotment order from the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister by compromising his judicial duties, we would also proceed against such allottee. He, however, was unable to receive any instructions in this behalf. It is trite,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... something materially, he becomes timid. When he becomes timid there will be tendency to compromise between his divine duty and his personal interest. There will be conflict in between interest and duty. This is what exactly has happened in this case. With due respect to the learned Judge, Justice B.P. Banerjee, he has mis-used his divine judicial duty as liveries to accomplish his personal ends. He has betrayed the trust reposed in him by the people. To say the least, this is bad. The matter could have been different if the learned Judge got allotment from the Chief Minister's quota simpliciter like any other citizen. 24. In the back-drop of the facts and circumstances, as recited above, we are of the view that the conduct of the learned Judge is beyond condonable limits. We are aware that the order, we propose to pass, no doubt is painful, but we have to perform a painful duty to instill public confidence in the Judiciary. It is a case where a private interest is pitted against a public interest. It is now well-settled principle of law that in such cases the latter must prevail over the former. Consequently, the order dated 24.7.1987 passed by the Chief Minister and the fo....