Can't recall restrain order in 2G case: SC

A three-judge Supreme Court bench on Thursday refused to entertain a plea filed by four 2G scam accused challenging another bench order, which had restrained the Delhi High Court or any other court to take up any petition or application in the matter.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, directed the petitioners to approach the special bench headed by Justice G S Singhvi with their plea.

Swan Telecom promoter Shahid Usman Balwa and others sought the court to set aside the orders passed by the special bench on April 11, 2011 and November 9, 2012.

Vinod Goenka, one of the promoters of Swan Telecom, Asif Balwa and Rajiv Aggarwal both directors of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Pvt Ltd also challenged the April 2011 order, which had said any “prayer for staying or impeding the progress of the trial can be made only before this court and no other court shall entertain the same.”

After hearing counsel representing petitioners and the CBI, the bench, also comprising Justices S S NIjjar and J Chelameswar, said that it was not proper on their part to hear the petition filed under Article 32 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution.

Instead, the bench told senior advocate Ram Jethmalani to approach the special bench.
Jethmalani, appearing for the petitioners, urged the bench to recall the orders passed by the special bench saying that if an order was passed without hearing the parties that order can be challenged before another bench and even a coordinate bench could recall it.

The bench, however, pointed it out to the counsel that his prayer in the petition was for “setting aside” the order which was different from “recall”.

Jethmalani countered to plead that the prayer should be considered as “recall”, which the court declined by telling him, “go and file proper application”.

He again contended that he was more concerned about the law of monitoring cases even after filing of the chargesheets. “The law of monitoring criminal cases has become an unruly horse, which is to be put under lease,” he said.

Jethmalani further contended that the order passed by the special bench was in violation of Constitution and due procedure of law.

Comments (+)