Gujarat High Court Expunges Remarks On Bar President's Conduct After He Expresses Regret Over Heated Exchange With Chief Justice

The Gujarat High Court on Monday (February 3) expunged its remarks on the conduct of High Court Advocates' Association President Brijesh Trivedi, after noting his regret over the heated exchange with Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal, during the hearing of a 2011 PIL last month. The court further took note of Trivedi's assurance that such an "occurrence will not be repeated in future". For context, the court had in its January 17 order deprecated Trivedi's conduct in seeking an adjournment in a 2011 PIL, observing that manner in which he acted indicated that he was trying to misuse his position as the elected President of the Bar for "creating his nuisance value in the Court". The order states that Trivedi "even commanded the Court to recuse" from hearing the matter by agitating that "it was the Court which was not permitting him to make his arguments".Thereafter on January 20, Advocate General Kamal Trivedi along with various members of the bar had told the court that the incident should not have happened. On Monday (February 03), division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi heard senior advocate Bhaskar Tanna representing the views of the Bar. He expressed that "lawyer cannot ask the Court for recusal from the case just because the Court is not accepting the views of the lawyer". Thereafter, as Trivedi expressed regret and gave an assurance that such occurrence will not be repeated in future, Court said, "we deem it fit and proper to expunge the remarks made against the conduct of Mr. Brijesh J. Trivedi on 17.1.2025 in our oral order dated 17.1.2025." The PIL was moved by then Municipal Councillor of Dhoraji Nagarpalika, having a grievance with respect to alleged illegal constructions raised by certain private respondents. The plea sought action by the authorities against such construction. During the hearing on Monday the court was informed that during the pendency of the PIL the State legislature enacted 'Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act' (GRUDA) 2022 for regularising the unauthorised development in the Municipal Corporation areas, Nagarpalika areas and development areas in the State and for matters connected therewith. The private respondents argued with the enforcement of GRUDA, now the grievances raised by the petitioner in the petition can be met at the end of the designated authority defined in Section 2(b) of GRUDA.Perusing through the provisions of the Act, the bench found it fit to relegate private respondent Nos. 8 to 20 to make their applications, if not already made, before the designated authority under GRUDA, 2022. Once such applications is filed, the court said, the designated authority shall consider the same on its merits without raising any issue of limitation prescribed under Section 6(1) and will pass a "reasoned and speaking order" strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The court said that the authority will keep in mind Section 8 which prescribes the circumstances in which unauthorised development shall not be regularised. It said that these applications will be decided designated authority, "as expeditiously as possible" preferably within six weeks of the receipt of the application. "As the matter has been prolonged for about 14 years, we find it fit and proper that each of the applicants shall be given a personal hearing on submissions of the application along with a copy of this order on a date to be fixed by the designated authority and by fixing dates in the pending application before it. In any case, due opportunity of hearing shall be provided to each of the applicants and in any case, the designated authority shall be under obligation to deal with the applications keeping in mind the provisions of the GRUDA, 2022," the court said clarifying that it has not gone into the merits of the case. With respect to the constructions which are subject matter of the PIL, the court gave liberty to the petitioner file appeal under Section 12(1) GRUDA if he is unhappy with the designated authority's decision adding that he would be treated as "person aggrieved" within the meaning of the Act and disposed of the plea. In a related development, on Wednesday (February 5) when the bench presided during the afternoon session, Tanna appeared along with Trivedi and mentioned before the bench,"My lord I have an unusual request to make" and pointed to the court's order from Monday. Tanna pointed to the portion of the order which said that Tanna being a senior member of the bar, representing the views of the Bar would also submit that lawyer cannot ask the Court for recusal from the case just because the Court is not accepting the views of the lawyer. Tanna thereafter said, "That was my personal view, and I pointed out that its my personal view it cannot be binding on anyone else. My learned friend Mr Oza was sitting very near to me...". At this stage the court orally said, "Mr Tanna we are not concerned with the politics in...

Gujarat High Court Expunges Remarks On Bar President's Conduct After He Expresses Regret Over Heated Exchange With Chief Justice

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags