Supreme Court Seeks Info About Suraz India Trust MD's Employment In Rajasthan Govt Service
story
The Supreme Court on Monday called for an affidavit from the state of Rajasthan disclosing the nature of employment that Rajiv Dhaiya, chairperson of NGO Suraz India Trust, holds with the state government and clarifying whether the activities being carried on by him are permissible.The Apex Court had in 2017 imposed costs of Rs. 25 lakhs on Mr. Dhaiya for filing 64 PILs over the years without...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Supreme Court on Monday called for an affidavit from the state of Rajasthan disclosing the nature of employment that Rajiv Dhaiya, chairperson of NGO Suraz India Trust, holds with the state government and clarifying whether the activities being carried on by him are permissible.
The Apex Court had in 2017 imposed costs of Rs. 25 lakhs on Mr. Dhaiya for filing 64 PILs over the years without any success before itself and several High Courts and "repeatedly misusing" the jurisdiction of the top court
The Court had taken serious note of him even having ventured to the residence of Supreme Court judges, including that of the CJI, levelling various allegations against the Supreme Court Registry staff. In February, the court had issued bailable warrants against Mr. Dhaiya for not depositing the cost of Rs 25 lakh. Then, on March 15, he was directed to place on record his current sources of income, as he had submitted that he is in a Government job. He was ordered to give a complete list of his movable and immovable assets, if any. Since he he had claimed to be in a Government job, the Court had required that he should give his last salary slip which will show the emoluments being received by him along with the deductions being made. Last Monday, the Court had issued contempt notice to Mr. Dhaiya, strongly deprecating his conduct, that along with not complying with the previous orders, he was seeking to "wriggle out of the proceedings by raising all kinds of objections". On April 5, Mr. Dhaiya had further stated that when he mentioned the Government job he was referring to the fact that he was a stenographer in a legal office but deployed with the State of Rajasthan. Accordingly, the Court had issued also notice to the standing counsel for the State of Rajasthan to verify the fact in view of "the non- cooperative attitude of Mr. Daiya".
"You can't play games like this!...We had issued notice to the state! What job does he do with the state? He has been raising scandalous allegations! He has been filing case after case, even after many cases had been dismissed! There were costs imposed on him but he is still continuing to do this! Can such a man even work for the state? Is he permitted to do all of this as a government servant? This is not acceptable to us! Look at what he is doing! ", directed Justice S. K. Kaul on Monday to Senior Advocate Manish Singhvi, appearing for the state of Rajasthan.
There was a mention of Mr. Dhaiya being a part of the Advocate General's office, a stenographer in the government office. The bench, also comprising Justice Hemant Gupta, then granted two weeks' time to the state of Rajasthan to file its affidavit disclosing the nature of Mr. Dhaiya's employment and clarifying whether, in his capacity as such, the activities being carried on by him or permissible. The bench then listed the matter for May 6.
The attention of the bench was also drawn to the compliance report, furnishing details of immovable and movable assets, filed by Mr. Dhaiya in pursuance of the aforesaid order of May 15. It was advanced that even the compliance affidavit "shows defiance, that he cannot pay the cost, and that he wants social liability of Rs.1,20,000".
"Take a loan and pay the costs! How do we care? We had cautioned earlier!", commented Justice Kaul. In the course of the hearing, Mr Dhaiya, who was appearing in person, prayed for the appointment of an Amicus Curiae so as to enable him to be able to consult the Amicus.
"You have been appearing in person all this time, in all your cases! If you are competent to appear in all those cases, why should we give you assistance now? Now when you are in trouble, you want an Amicus? Why? What is this happening? No, no, no…", observed Justice Kaul. The bench recorded that in the present matter, the appointment of an Amicus Curiae may not be necessary as Mr. Dhaiya has been "appearing in person in practically all cases".
However, the bench granted Mr. Dhaiya permission to file any documents that he wishes to rely on, in his response to the contempt proceedings, in 2 days.