India Legal – July 13, 2019

| INDIA LEGAL |July 22, 2019 17

Both were judicial decisions affirming
distinctive constitutional goals and
remain worthy of a conjoint reading. In
this article, because of reasons of space,
we will focus on “Resurfacing”, leaving
the consideration of the Meghalaya deci-
sionfor next week.

TIMELINE OF RESURFACING
On the face of the decision, there was
only an insignificant delay of nearly five
years in the Supreme Court’s disposal of
the matter; it should be noted that the
bench of two justices referred the matter
to a larger bench on September 9, 2003.
However, the original cause of action
occurred a long while ago during 1997-
1998 when some wrongful loss was
allegedly caused to the MCD by signing
of fake invoices of oil companies relating
to transportation of bitumen for use in
dense carpeting works of roads in Delhi.
We do not know from the judicial
archives what happened to roadworthi-

ness, but we do know that it took a very

long time—some would say inordinate—

for the consumers of justice to know

about the interpretive entanglements.

All proceedings on the charges

initi ally framed by the CBI judge on

Feb ru ary 1, 2007, were stayed till the

consider ation of the Criminal Revision

No 321 of 2007 before the Delhi High

Court against the order framing charges.

The Revision Petition was converted

into Writ Petition (Criminal) No 352

of 2010.

If we were to take 1997-98 as the

beg inning of proceedings, the ultimate

date of disposal seems to be March 8,

2018. Even then, it is not a final disposi-
      tion on facts; that is still to take place.
      Wait, the story is not yet over: the refer-
      ring Supreme Court bench ordered that
      “further proceedings before the trial
      Court shall remain stayed”; the larger
      bench enigmatically ordered that “along
      with other connected matters, may now
      be listed before an appropriate bench as
      first matter, subject to overnight part-
      heard, on Wednesday, the 18th April,
      2018”. Not being a practising lawyer, I
      have not been able to determine what

actually happened in this as well all

other cases under the old regime of

SIIO; but it would be reasonable to

assume that this sorting out will take

some further adjudicative time. After

all, nothing is an instant happening in

the judicial universe, and this may be a

good thing, too.

THE NEW REGIME OF SIIO

The Supreme Court valiantly cuts to the

interpretive judicial thicket. It decisively

answers all the major questions and

puts to rest the interpretive chaos. It

declares that the “order framing charge

is not purely an interlocutory order nor

a final order” and that the jurisdiction of

the “High Court is not barred irrespec-

tive of the label of a petition, be it under

Sections 397 or 482 CrPC or Article 227

of the Constitution”.

However, that jurisdiction is “to be

exercised consistent with the legislative

policy to ensure expeditious disposal of

a trial without the same being in any

manner hampered”. Incidentally, the

Supreme Court seems to have missed

the valued opportunity of reiterating its

own enunciations of the right to

LANDMARK DECISION
The facts of the Resurfacingcase related to
signing of fake invoices for transportation of
bitumen for use in road construction in Delhi

youtube.com