New Delhi, August 24 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the operation of a recent Allahabad High Court order which had directed legal action against two advocates for allegedly misleading the court and securing relief for their clients through a fabricated copy of a land acquisition award.
A Bench of Justices P.K. Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar passed the interim order while hearing a special leave petition (SLP) filed by advocate Shiv Kant Mishra challenging the Allahabad High Court's July 30 order.
The apex court issued notice on the SLP and directed that the matter be listed on October 12.
In the meantime, the Justice Mishra-led Bench also ordered a stay in respect of the impugned High Court order.
The Allahabad High Court had directed its Registrar General to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC against advocates Shiv Kant Mishra and Krishna Kant Mishra, observing that their conduct prima facie constituted an offence under Section 199 of the IPC, punishable under Section 193 for giving false evidence.
The High Court had also directed the Registrar General to prefer complaints before the Bar Council of India and the state Bar Council seeking cancellation of the licences of the two advocates.
The proceedings stemmed from a dispute concerning payment of interest on compensation for land acquired by the Bareilly Development Authority. The High Court, while allowing a review application filed by the authority, found that a typed copy of an award dated April 26, 2016 contained an addition providing for interest at 9 per cent per annum for the first year and 15 per cent thereafter, which was allegedly absent from the original award.
A bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Kshitij Shailendra said the typed copy was produced before a coordinate bench, which had relied on it while passing an order on May 24, 2024, directing the authority to pay interest to the landowners from the date of dispossession till the declaration of the award.
The High Court observed that the Bareilly Development Authority later discovered the alleged fraud and moved the review application, following which it examined the original award and the typed copy. Rejecting the submission that the discrepancy was merely a typographical error, the Allahabad High Court said: "A typographical error stands out from an act of deception."
It further held that the counsels were aware of the addition of the 9 per cent and 15 per cent interest rates and had made the alteration to secure a monetary benefit for their clients. The High Court observed that the alleged conduct went beyond an inadvertent mistake and amounted to "misfeasance by the counsels". It also rejected the plea for forgiveness and observed that the apologies offered after the alleged conduct came to light could not be treated as genuine remorse.
The Justice Sreedharan-led Bench said that allowing such conduct to go lightly would send a wrong message to the Bar that "sharp practice is acceptable as long as it remains undetected".
While setting aside its earlier May 24, 2024 order on the ground that it had been secured by "playing fraud on this Court", the Allahabad High Court directed the Bareilly Development Authority to initiate recovery proceedings for the amounts already paid to the beneficiaries. It also directed that the Registrar General conduct an inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC and thereafter prefer a complaint before the competent Magistrate in relation to the alleged offence. The Supreme Court's interim order has now stayed the operation of the impugned Allahabad High Court order, including its directions arising from the findings against the two advocates, pending further consideration of the matter.
