On Tuesday(14th May),Justice Abhay S Oka, presiding over the Supreme Court bench, rebuked the SC Registry for its recurring failure to compile previous case orders, impeding the efficient review of past directives.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday(14th May), Justice Abhay S Oka, leading the Supreme Court bench, lamented the recurring failure of the SC Registry to compile previous orders in a case file, despite repeated instructions. This oversight, overseen by the Registry under the stewardship of the Secretary General, under the purview of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, has hindered the judges’ ability to efficiently review past directives.
During the proceedings of a case concerning Karnataka’s request to sell sand obtained from desilting ponds, lakes, and rivers, Justice Oka expressed his discontent to his fellow bench member, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Justice Oka noted that-
“The bench’s repeated directives to include copies of the orders passed in a case on record have not been followed by the registry.”
ALSO READ: Two NCDRC Members involved in Ireo Grace Realtech Case, SC Closes Contempt Cases
He highlighted the issue, stating-
“The current case serves as a prominent illustration of this ongoing oversight.”
Consequently, the court-master was instructed to provide a copy of the order to Secretary General Atul Kurhekar for necessary action.
The case at hand involved Karnataka’s plea to sell desilted material to prevent the overflowing of water bodies during the monsoon season. Senior advocates Basava Prabhu Patil and Devadatt Kamat represented the Karnataka government, arguing for the sale of desilted material. The bench considered the plea and made a significant distinction in its ruling.
The bench noted that if the desilted material was to be used in government projects, it would allow such usage.
“if the government wanted to sell it for commercial gain, then it should be done by public auction,”
-the bench declared.
The counsels agreed to this condition, leading the bench to approve the auction, emphasizing that it must be conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The auction proceeds were directed to be deposited in the court.
The bench imposed an additional requirement: the auction must be carried out within a month, with the area deputy commissioner certifying its fairness and transparency. The Supreme Court stipulated that orders for the disbursal of the auction proceeds to the state government would be issued after the money was deposited in the court.
