Supreme Court Imposes Rs 25 Lakhs Cost On Applicant For Baseless Allegations Against High Court

The applicant had sought to implead in a case related to sale of assets of Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust of Indore, Madhya Pradesh,

The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar opined that an applicant who wants to get impleaded must show some restraint and must not make unfounded allegations as made in his application.

Deprecating the casual manner in which the same was drafted, the bench rejected the application for impleadment.

Accordingly, the bench in its order said,

"This application is filed by one Vijay Singh Pal which has been drafted by Mr Ajay Veer Pundir. Dr AM Singhvi invited our attention to the averments made in the application which to say the least are unacceptable. Applicant had the audacity to make allegations against the Uttarakhand High Court and High Officials of State Government. In our opinion, an applicant who wants to get impleaded in the by way of application before this court in matters which involve complex issues must show some restraint and must not make unfounded allegations as made in this application. We do not deem it necessary to reproduce the averments. We deprecate the casual manner in which the application has been drafted and ill-advised. We reject this application by imposing an exemplary cost on the applicant of Rs 25 lakhs to be collected by the Collector, Haridwar and the same be deposited in the Registry of this court within 4 weeks from today. We reject the application filed by the applicant herein".

SC refuses to vacate stay imposed by High Court

"List this main matter on Non Miscellaneous Day in the 3rd week of February. We place on record that we are not inclined to grant the interim relief for vacating the stay with regards to the direction regarding initiation of criminal process as given by the HC as that was passed after hearing all concerned on 16th October 2020", the bench said.

On October 16, 2020, the bench of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice B.R. Gavai had directed the concerned parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession and title of properties, and not to transfer or create any third-party interest. The Court also stayed the criminal proceedings ordered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Court further went on to direct the State authorities to abstain from taking any precipitative steps to take over the management of properties, if the same had not been done so far.

When the matter was called for hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the applicant seeking vacation of interim relief argued that now the High Court had ordered investigation by the crime branch of the State Police.

"Let the investigation go on. See the order passed by this court on October 16, 2020 the 3rd last paragraph- until further order. Now the High Court has ordered an investigation by the crime branch of the State Police. Prayer for CBI investigation but said that let the crime branch of the State Police. Properties worth rupees 100 of cores have been allowed to be sold at a very less price," added Advocate Bhushan.

It was also Advocate Prashant Bhushan's submissions that the documents showed that properties were sold by the petitioners to their relatives for a pittance.

"Look at the sale deeds. The sale is 1/10th 0r 1/20th of the market value. These are trust properties and fraud has been played," he further added.

Supporting Advocate Bhushan's submission, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on State's behalf argued that criminal proceedings needed immediate attention.

"I would join Mr Bhushan in the request. Let the investigation continue. So far as the title of the property is concerned, findings are in favour of the State Government. They have surreptitiously parted with the possessions and sold them to their near and dear ones. Criminal proceedings need immediate attention," SG further added.

Countering the submissions, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for the petitioners said that the Top Court's interim relief was granted after hearing the parties in length.

"Case is that the trustees of this trust have about 200 properties which were held by the rules. They do not claim ownership of any of the properties. They are public trust properties and they will remain so but the state says that they are state properties. From the times of accession, this is clear. Suddenly the collector issued an order that these properties went to the state and not the trust and we went to the Court. No claim is made by the original rulers," Senior Counsel added.

Senior Advocate AM Singhvi for the petitioners while tracing the meaning of the word "Khasgi" submitted that the properties were continuing in the family since the 18th century and that the same was also recognised by the Government of India letters.

 Case Title: The Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities)Trust Indore And Anr. v. Vipin Dhanaitkar And Ors.| SLP(C) No. 12133/2020

Click Here To Read/Download Order