The Supreme Court today stayed a Gauhati High Court judgment directing a CBI probe against the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Nabam Tuki..A three judge Bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu, and Gopala Gowda, Amitava Roy JJ. stayed the August 21 judgment after Senior Advocates Harish Salve and MN Krishnamani appeared for Tuki..The case and a suo moto (telephonic ) transfer of PILs.The case pertains to a PIL filed in 2006 by one Nabam Tagam in the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court. The petition raised allegations of nepotism against Tuki in awarding certain contract works when he was the PWD Minister. It was alleged that he awarded construction contracts to his relatives..The petition was pending before the Itanagar Bench when the Acting Chief Justice of Gauhati, K Shreedhar Rao directed that all the PIL matters be transferred from the Itanagar, Mizoram and Nagaland Benches to Gauhati..It is alleged by Tuki that on finding that the transferred matters did not include Nabam Tagam’s PIL, the Acting Chief Justice directed the Registry to specifically transfer this matter to Gauhati..What the acting Chief Justice did .Subsequently, the matter came up before the acting Chief Justice K Sreedhar Rao twice, and was adjourned on both occasions. On August 4, the Respondents sought time to file additional documents, and the matter was listed two weeks later..By this time, the Gauhati Bar Association had decided to boycott Acting Chief Justice K Sreedhar’s court. The lawyers had two grievances – one the transfer of all PIL’s to Gauhati without sufficient notice to the lawyers, and two, the appointment of a lawyer as amicus in a particular matter..As per the petition, when the matter came up for hearing on August 20, the petitioners’ lawyers could not enter the court room due to the boycott. Requests for adjournment were rejected, with the court reserving judgment. The very next day, the judgment was delivered..The impugned judgment.In the judgment, the High Court clearly admitted that,.“the arguments in the case is not formally completely by the parties”..It, however, held that the.“pleadings placed in the shape of affidavits, reply affidavits etc. and in the arguments submitted there has been no convincing answer to the admission of incriminating facts made in the affidavits of respondents….In the oral arguments also, it was argued that because of illiteracy and peculiar geographical and social conditions, the adherence to the requirement of calling tenders was not being followed. .If the contracts had been awarded to third parties, the said explanation could have gained some weight but the contracts have been awarded to the close relatives of respondent 7 and therefore any amount of skillful formal oral arguments cannot be effective to efface or overcome the admitted incriminating facts”..Therefore, it directed a CBI investigation into the contracts, and the registration of an FIR against the Chief Minister..The case in the Supreme Court.Tuki has contended that the High Court has proceeded with the assumption that the pleadings of the parties filed in the case was enough for the High Court to pass an order directing a CBI investigation..Tuki has submitted that arguments had not at all been advanced by the parties on the merits of the case and the High Court judgment is, therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice.
The Supreme Court today stayed a Gauhati High Court judgment directing a CBI probe against the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Nabam Tuki..A three judge Bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu, and Gopala Gowda, Amitava Roy JJ. stayed the August 21 judgment after Senior Advocates Harish Salve and MN Krishnamani appeared for Tuki..The case and a suo moto (telephonic ) transfer of PILs.The case pertains to a PIL filed in 2006 by one Nabam Tagam in the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court. The petition raised allegations of nepotism against Tuki in awarding certain contract works when he was the PWD Minister. It was alleged that he awarded construction contracts to his relatives..The petition was pending before the Itanagar Bench when the Acting Chief Justice of Gauhati, K Shreedhar Rao directed that all the PIL matters be transferred from the Itanagar, Mizoram and Nagaland Benches to Gauhati..It is alleged by Tuki that on finding that the transferred matters did not include Nabam Tagam’s PIL, the Acting Chief Justice directed the Registry to specifically transfer this matter to Gauhati..What the acting Chief Justice did .Subsequently, the matter came up before the acting Chief Justice K Sreedhar Rao twice, and was adjourned on both occasions. On August 4, the Respondents sought time to file additional documents, and the matter was listed two weeks later..By this time, the Gauhati Bar Association had decided to boycott Acting Chief Justice K Sreedhar’s court. The lawyers had two grievances – one the transfer of all PIL’s to Gauhati without sufficient notice to the lawyers, and two, the appointment of a lawyer as amicus in a particular matter..As per the petition, when the matter came up for hearing on August 20, the petitioners’ lawyers could not enter the court room due to the boycott. Requests for adjournment were rejected, with the court reserving judgment. The very next day, the judgment was delivered..The impugned judgment.In the judgment, the High Court clearly admitted that,.“the arguments in the case is not formally completely by the parties”..It, however, held that the.“pleadings placed in the shape of affidavits, reply affidavits etc. and in the arguments submitted there has been no convincing answer to the admission of incriminating facts made in the affidavits of respondents….In the oral arguments also, it was argued that because of illiteracy and peculiar geographical and social conditions, the adherence to the requirement of calling tenders was not being followed. .If the contracts had been awarded to third parties, the said explanation could have gained some weight but the contracts have been awarded to the close relatives of respondent 7 and therefore any amount of skillful formal oral arguments cannot be effective to efface or overcome the admitted incriminating facts”..Therefore, it directed a CBI investigation into the contracts, and the registration of an FIR against the Chief Minister..The case in the Supreme Court.Tuki has contended that the High Court has proceeded with the assumption that the pleadings of the parties filed in the case was enough for the High Court to pass an order directing a CBI investigation..Tuki has submitted that arguments had not at all been advanced by the parties on the merits of the case and the High Court judgment is, therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice.
