Gujarat High Court: Acting upon a suo motu PIL initiated by Justice B.J.Shethna, Former Judge of Gujarat and Rajasthan High Court and letter dated 6.7.2015 of Justice K.R.Vyas, Former Chief Justice, Bombay High Court and Former Judge of Gujarat High Court questioning the allotment of flats, house or plots to the Judges, the bench of V.M. Sahai, ACJ and R.P. Dholaria, J. issued notices to the Government of Gujarat along with 27 sitting and retired judges. The list also includes Justice A.R. Dave, the sitting judge of Supreme Court of India.
The Court stated that in this era of transparency, everything has to be before the public and no one can claim that they are above law. The Court, however, noticed that the intention on the part of the Government appears to be pious that those Judges did not have any plot, flat or house, they should be allotted a plot so that after retirement they may settle down in the house for which the Government has provided the land and that the intention of the Government never meant to allot the plots to the Hon’ble Judges for any other purpose.
Kamal B. Tiwari, the advocate general had mentioned that the cooperative society in which the allotments had been made, belonged to government and that there is free access to public on the road of the society. However, B.T. Rao pointed out that nobody but the members of the society are allowed to access the said roads. Considering the said argument, the Court said that if this is the case, how the Government has not charged 40% amount of land, which is charged from other Cooperative Societies and also if the internal development of the total area of land in the Cooperative Society exists has been carried out by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on their expenses then it should be explained on whose order. Considering the urgency of the matter, it will be taken up tomorrow before a newly constituted bench. Allotment of plots to Judges, In re, 2015 SCC OnLine Guj 1043
See also Allotment of Plots to Judges, In re, 2015 SCC OnLine Guj 1044
Matter before the High Court stayed in (2015) 9 SCC 412.