Supreme Court Judge Arun Mishra on Friday launched a stinging criticism against residents of illegal Maradu flats in Kerala for approaching another apex court Bench to get a stay of the demolition of their apartments on the sly.
On May 8, a Vacation Bench led by Justice Mishra ordered the flats, numbering over 400, to be demolished within a month. However, on June 10, residents approached another Vacation Bench led by Justice Indira Banerjee to get a stay. The residents complained that they were not heard by Justice Mishra's Bench before the said demolition order was passed.
A livid Justice Mishra called the act of the residents to pit the order of one Bench against another as an ‘absolute fraud’ committed on the court. “The plea for stay was turned down by me, yet you went to another Bench” Justice Mishra told the residents’ lawyers.
The judge threatened contempt even against the lawyers involved. Finally, the residents withdrew their plea.
“Should we draw contempt against you? Ethics have gone to the dogs...What is happening in this court? Three to four senior counsel are part of this fraud. You should have declined to appear. Is money everything for you?” Justice Mishra lashed out.
Justice Mishra hinted that a senior advocate from Kolkata was engaged by the parties to probably sway him to give a favourable order.
On June 10, Justice Banerjee's Bench had put on hold the demolition of the buildings for six weeks after the hapless residents pleaded that they were not even given an opportunity to be heard before the apex court passed the order to raze the five apartment blocks at Maradu in Ernakulam.
Assuring that the review plea would be heard in the first week of July, the Justice Banerjee Bench had ordered status quo till then.
The main ground of review petitioners was that the Supreme Court-appointed three-member committee had not given them a proper hearing on the show cause notice pertaining to violations and, therefore, the demolition order violated their fundamental right.
This plea by house owners had immediately followed a petition by an affected builder alleging that the court was misled by the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority (KCZMA) into passing the May 8 order.
The three-member panel report had concluded that the buildings fell within the CRZ-III limits.
