[Reader-list] How true is Justice Sabharwal? Probe demanded.

[Shivam Vij]

Dear Bikash,

Thanks for posting this here. If you happen to know Mr Abhishek Behl,
please tell him that plagiarism may not be as bad as nepotism by a
Chief Justice but it is still criminal. No doubt you will find this on
"merinews," which is sadly falls lowest in terms of online
credibility.
best
shivam

On 9/20/07, Bikash Ballabh Singh <vikash.sen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice YK Sabarwal is in the midst of a
> controversy, with senior lawyers and former CJIs demanding a probe into the
> allegations. A Report...
>
> by Abhishek Behl
> http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=126536
>
> HE SEALED the fate of many a people in Delhi, with his strict orders on
> 'Sealing' the illegal buildings in the Indian capital.
>
> But 'sealing' today came back to haunt the former Chief Justice of India
> (CJI), Justice Y K Sabharwal, when questions were raised over his
> professional conduct into the entire sealing episode.
>
> Raising serious allegations over the professional demeanour of the former
> CJI, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms (CJAJR),
> a group of jurists and social activists, demanded a probe into the manner in
> which his Lordship accrued pecuniary benefits for his sons, through his
> judicial orders over the sealing issue, on Wednesday (September 19).
>
> We need to approach the serious allegations against the former CJI with
> caution and care. Is Justice Sabharwal being singled out for some reason or
> is there any iota of truth in these charges? In fact, a section of the legal
> fraternity feels that Justice Sabharwal should himself demand an impartial
> probe into the serious allegations. They added that other former CJIs,
> judges and senior lawyers' demand for a fair probe into these charges needs
> to be viewed in the light of utter fairness and objectivity.
>
> Addressing media persons in Delhi, senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan demanded
> that an independent probe should be ordered by the Supreme Court of India to
> find out the truth.
>
> "We want the truth to come out and for this the Supreme Court has to take
> the lead", he said, alleging that Justice Sabharwal's two sons had colluded
> with the builders to take advantage of the real estate market influenced by
> the sealing drive.
>
> Making a point-by-point rebuttal of Justice Sabharwal's statement published
> in the media, Prashant demanded that the Justice Sabharwal be charged under
> prevention of corruption act.
>
> The Judicial Reforms Group further stated that they would initiate an
> independent inquiry if the Supreme Court did nothing in this regard.
>
> A time of reckoning for Indian Judiciary has come and it is time the Apex
> Court rises to the occasion and faces the challenge, said former Law
> Minister and veteran lawyer, Shanti Bhushan.
>
> "A number of former Chief Justices including Justice V K Krishna Iyer,
> Justice PB Sawant, Justice JC Verma have called for a probe into this matter
> and same will bring forth the truth.
>
> Noted social activists Swami Agnivesh and Arvind Kejriwal, who were present
> on the occasion, also demanded an impartial probe into the affairs of
> Justice Sabharwal.
>
> On this occasion, a document, in the form of a press release, was issued by
> the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms detailing the
> alleged irregularities.
>
> Here it must be mentioned that former Chief Justices of India including
> Justice J C Verma, Justice VN Khare, Justice PB Sawant and Justice V R
> Krishna Iyer had called for a voluntary probe to put an end to this
> controversy. They had said that an independent probe would bring out the
> truth and restore the credibility of Indian judiciary.
>
> A few days earlier, Justice Sabharwal had, however, strongly denied any
> wrongdoing on his part or on the part of his two sons, in the media.
>
> The document (press release), is reproduced verbatim, issued by Campaign for
> Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms (CJAJR), on Wednesday:
>
> Justice Sabharwal finally broke his silence in a signed piece in the Times
> of India. His defence proceeds by ignoring and sidestepping the inconvenient
> and emphasizing the irrelevant if it can evoke sympathy. To examine the
> adequacy of his defence, we need to see his defence against the gravamen of
> each charge against him.
>
> *Charge No. 1:* That his son's companies had shifted their registered
> offices to his official residence.
>
> *Justice Sabharwal's response:* That as soon as he came to know he ordered
> his son's to shift it back.
>
> *CJAJR's Rejoinder:* This is False. In April 2007, in a recorded interview
> with the Midday reporter MK Tayal he feigned total ignorance of the shifting
> of the offices to his official residence. Copy of the CD containing the said
> conversation is attached hereto as Annexure I. In fact, the registered
> offices were shifted back from his official residence to his Punjabi Bagh
> residence exactly on the day that the BPTP mall developers became his sons'
> partners, making it very risky to continue at his official residence. Copies
> of the document showing the date of induction of Kabul Chawla, the promoter
> and owner of BPTP in Pawan Impex Pvt. Ltd., one of the companies of Jutstice
> Sabharwal's sons, and Form no. 18 showing the shifting of the registered
> office from the official residence of Justice Sabharwal to his family
> residence on 23rd October 2004 are attached hereto as Annexure II (Colly).
>
> *Charge No. 2:* That he called for and dealt with the sealing of commercial
> property case in March 2005, though it was not assigned to him. It is only
> the Chief Justice who can assign pending cases to various judges. He was not
> the CJI at that time. Copy of the order dated 17th March 2005 is attached
> hereto as Annexure III.
>
> *Justice Sabharwal's response:* Justice Sabharwal does not answer this
> charge.
>
> *Charge No. 3:* That he did this exactly around the time that his sons got
> into partnerships with Mall and commercial complex developers, who stood to
> benefit from his sealing orders. The chain of events is as follows:
>
> On 23rd October 2004, Kabul Chawla, the promoter of one of the biggest
> developers of shopping malls and commercial complexes, was inducted in Pawan
> Impex as a 50% shareholder and Director. On 12.02.2005, Kabul Chawla's wife,
> Anjali Chawla was also inducted as Director of Pawan Impex. On 17th March
> 2005, Justice Sabharwal ordered that the case dealing with the sealing of
> commercial establishments should also be heard along with the writ of M.C.
> Mehta, which was being heard by him. On 8th April 2005, Chetan Sabharwal and
> Nitin Sabharwal, two sons of Justice Sabharwal, set up another company,
> Harpawan Constructors, with the object of constructing Commercial complexes.
> On 25th October 2005, Purshottam Bagheria, one of the big builders on
> shopping malls and commercial complexes of Delhi was inducted as a partner
> in Harpwan Construtors. On 16th Februrary 2006, Justice Y. K. Sabharwal, who
> by that time had become the Chief Justice of India, passed a detailed order
> in the aforementioned case setting into motion the demolition and sealing in
> Delhi.
>
> *Justice Sabharwal's response:* That they were his sons friends. That
> Harpawan Constructors, which was set up by his sons with the Mall developer
> Purshottam Bagheria did not do any business. In fact the courts under him
> got Bagheria's 1 MG road mall demolished. That his sons are not developing
> shopping malls but only an IT Park.
>
> *CJAJR's Rejoinder:* If so many Mall and commercial complex developers were
> his sons' close friends, then he should not have dealt with the case anyway
> since that creates an immediate conflict of interest. Moreover, why should
> they go into partnership with these developers who stood to benefit from
> Justice Sabharwal's orders, and that too exactly at the time when he seizes
> control of the sealing of commercial property case and starts dealing with
> it. He says that the company set up by his sons in partnership with Bagheria
> has not done any business. If so, why was this new company set up for
> developing commercial complexes in partnership with this builder? In an
> interview with ZNews Justice Sabhawal claims credit for the judiciary under
> him ordering the demolition of the illegal 1 MG road mall owned by Bagheria.
> But then why do his sons enter into partnerships with such an illegal
> builder whose buildings have had to be demolished by the Judiciary? And
> immediately after this partnership with the Sabharwals, Bagheria went on to
> announce the construction of "Square 1 mall" in Saket as the most
> fashionable mall in India. And all the fashion designers who had their shops
> and outlets at 1 MG road went on to buy space in the Square I mall. What is
> important to note here is that Bagheria and his partners at 1 MG road had
> already parted with all the space on 1 MG Road. The demolition thus hurt the
> designers and others who had bought shops there, but did not hurt Bagheria
> who may have in fact benefited from it by clearing the land of his tenants
> and getting them to buy space at his new malls at Saket and elsewhere.
> An IT park is also a commercial complex like any other. Many commercial
> establishments sealed were IT centres and BPOs, which were forced to buy
> space in, IT parks like that being constructed by his sons and their
> partners.
>
> *Charge No. 4:* That the Union Bank of India gave a loan of 28 crores to his
> sons' company Pavan Impex on a collateral of plant and machinery and other
> moveables at the site of their proposed IT Park, which were non-existent.
>
> *Justice Sabharwal's response*: That his sons' had a credit facility of 75
> crores.
>
> *CJAJR's Rejoinder:* If that were the case, what was the need for mortgaging
> non-existent assets for obtaining this loan? Moreover, the Banks' senior
> manager is on record saying that the loan was given on the basis of
> projected sales to prospective customers. The conversation with the Bank
> Manager is in the CD attached hereto as Annexure I.
>
> *Charge No. 5:* That because of the obvious conflict of interest, he could
> not have dealt with this case.
>
> *Justice Sabharwal's response:* That his orders have never benefited his
> sons.
>
> *CJAJR's Rejoinder:* His orders of sealing lakhs of commercial properties
> clearly forced those establishments to buy or rent space in commercial
> complexes like those that his sons' companies were constructing; and
> shopping malls etc that their friends and partners were constructing. There
> was a clear conflict of interest and his orders have clearly benefited his
> sons and their partners.
>
> *Charge No. 6:* That a large number of industrial and commercial plots were
> allotted in Noida by the UP government to his sons' companies, at prices far
> below the market price. In particular several huge plots were allotted
> between December 2004 and November 2006 by the Mulayam Singh/Amar Singh
> government, while he was dealing with Amar Singh's tapes case, and had
> stayed the publication of those tapes on the behest of Amar Singh.
>
> *Justice Sabharwal's response:* That some of the plots were allotted by
> earlier different governments. That the prices were not far below the market
> price. That the allotments were made in the normal course to his sons who
> were entrepreneurs and were providing employment to hundreds of people in
> Noida.
>
> *CJAJR's Rejoinder:* Even if one were to look at only the last two
> allotments of 12,000 metres each made in December 2004 and November 2006,
> made by the Mulayam Singh/Amar Singh governments, it is obvious that the
> allotments are definitely not in the normal course. Consider the allotment
> to Pawan Impex. The company has Nil turnover and Nil business (as declared
> in their application) on the date of application on 30/12/04. The very next
> day they receive a letter from Noida Authority asking them to come for an
> interview within 4 days on 5/11/04. On that day the authority notes that
> they want 12,000 sq m in Sector 125 or Sector 132. The minutes note that
> because the work of development of Sector 125 is not complete and because in
> sector 132 the plot size available is only upto 11,000 sq metres, the matter
> is deferred for the next meeting. In the next meeting on 13/12/04, though
> Sector 125 is still not developed, a decision is taken to allot them a
> 12,000 Sq. metre plot in Sector 125 for a BPO. All this without a word about
> how and why a company with nil business is worthy of being allotted one of
> the largest plots of 12,000 sq. meters. The previous application of M/s
> Softedge Solutions Pvt. Ltd for an IT park is rejected on the ground that
> they could not satisfactorily answer questions about their previous
> experience in IT and their technical tie up. But Pawan Impex represented by
> Chetan Sabharwal with Nil business, no previous track record in IT and no
> technical tie up sails through with no questions asked. All in the normal
> course, of course! Copies of the profit and loss accounts of Pawan Impex
> Pvt. Ltd. for the year ended 31.03.2003 and 31.03.2004 showing its income
> nil are attached hereto as Annexure IV (Colly). Justice Sabharwal says that
> the allotment price of Rs. 3,700/sq M was not below the market price. The
> current circle rate in Sector 125 is Rs. 11,000/sq metre and the market
> price is over Rs. 30,000/sq meter there.
>
> Similarly, the huge plot of 3 acres, No. 12 A in Sector 68 alloted to Sabs
> Exports in November 2006 at a throw away price of Rs. 4000 per square meter
> is also not in the normal course and was similarly made within days of
> application and a bogus interview, without any other system. Today, within
> 10 months of allotment, even the circle rate of plots in Sector 68 is Rs.
> 8,000 per sq. meter and the market rate is Rs. 20-22,000 per sq. meter.
> Moreover this allotment has been made at a time when he was dealing with
> Amar Singh's tapes case and had stayed the publication of the tapes.
>
> *Charge No. 7:* That his sons have purchased a 1150 square meter house in
> Maharani bagh, New Delhi in March 2007 for a consideration of 15.46 crores.
> The source of money for this is unexplained and in the sale deed they seek
> to conceal their relationship with Justice Sabharwal by writing his name as
> Yogesh Kumar and giving their factory address instead of the residential
> address.
>
> *Justice Sabharwal's response:* That 90 per cent of the money for the
> purchase of this house was from four banks; that his sons concealed his full
> name in the sale deed in order to avoid taking advantage of their
> association with him.
> * *
> *CJAJR's Rejoinder:* Banks do not normally advance loans of 90% of the value
> of a property on its security. Otherwise they would end up holding
> inadequate security if the property prices fall by even 15%. If they have
> done so in this case, it is either because of an undue favour as in the case
> of the loan of 28 Crores to Pawan Impex, or they valued the property higher
> than the declared purchase price. His explanation for concealing his name in
> the sale deed is hilarious and unbelievable since his sons did not hesitate
> to use his official residence as the registered office of their companies.
> Moreover, this was in a registered sale deed with a private party, where
> there was no occasion for taking any advantage by using his name.