High Court grills Maharashtra Govt on Bhatia’s transfer

With the Chief Minister’s counsel seeking more time to complete his submission, the hearing of the case will continue tomorrow.

Counsels of the four public interest petitioners picked holes in the affidavits of Chief Minister Narayan Rane and Chief Secretary P Subrahmanyam, who claimed that there was no nexus between the transfer orders of March 13 and the demolition drive of Bhatia that began on March 10. The Stateclaimed that it had already decided to take action against Bhatia on March 9 for allegedly leaking confidential correspondence between him and Subrahmanyam to the press. The affidavits claimed his presence in Pune pending the enquiry could have an “adverse effect on the working of the corporation”.

“It does not follow reasonable thinking that there could be any effect between the enquiry and the working of the corporation,” said counsel for one of the petitioners, Iqbal Chagla, who reiterated that it was the demolition of unauthorised structures of important political persons by Bhatia that did him in.

“Are you suggesting that the Chief Minister was unaware of the demolitions of March 10?” asked Chief Justice Sabharwal of the Advocate General, to which Sawant said that records did not show any such thing. “Are you trying to put the onus on the petitioners to prove that the CM knew of the demolitions?” he asked again.

“If the CM was keen on stopping the demolitions, he could have stopped themon March 10, 11 or 12. He wouldn’t wait till March 13 to serve the orders,” Sawant answered. The Chief Justice remarked that he found it “very difficult” to believe that an enquiry would have an adverse effect on the “working of the corporation”. He also demanded an explanation from the State counsel for the press briefing of Rane on March 14th, where he allegedly said that Bhatia’s demolition of certain structures despite a stay from the State Government had led to his transfer.

“There are demolitions and demolitions. Do you think that a Government would want to lose its head on a demolition?” asked Sawant, to which the CJ said that it all depended on whose property was being demolished! The remark brought a round of laughter in the jam-packed court room. At one point, Justice Radhakrishnan asked why no enquiry had begun against Bhatia, though the CM’s orders were that an enquiry should be conducted “forthwith”. Sawant replied that with the petition on in the High Court, the State was waiting fora “proper atmosphere” for conducting the enquiry.

It was counsel for the CM, E Venkateshwaran, who elaborated that a “tainted commissioner under enquiry for insubordination” would lose the respect of his officers in the corporation. “Pune is the second best city in Maharashtra. Would it not reflect on the corporation’s working?” he asked. He said that the high seat of the commissioner should not be “seen to be subject to an enquiry”. “An IAS officer is the eyes and ears of the Government. A corporation is run by the corporators, it is the commissioner who protects and maintains the revenue and the status of the corporation”, he submitted.

On the dates involved, Venkateshwaran said that Bhatia had announced his decision to demolish unauthorised structures on March 8 and 9. “This decision was known to the CM. If this was the only reason, why did he allow Bhatia to blaze his names in the newspapers?”.

He also urged the court not to “lend credence” to newspaper reports where Rane is quoted tohave said that demolitions resulted in Bhatia’s transfer. “The press has always been anti-establishment and pro-Bhatia,” he claimed.