The importance of maintaining the dignity and integrity of the judiciary and the consequences of making reckless and scandalous allegations against the court.

A.S. Oka, J.

1. With great deal of anguish that we are dictating this order. But the events which have happened are so extraordinary that we have no choice in the larger interests of the Judiciary but to record those extraordinary events.

2. Public Interest Litigation No.173 of 2010 and other connected matters were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court (A.S. Oka & A.A. Sayed, JJ) by the judgment and order dated 10th, 11th, 12th and 16th August 2016. It is a matter of record and it is an undisputed fact that as per the administrative order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 18th November 2016, these disposed of Petitions were ordered to be placed for considering compliance before a Division Bench of which one of us (A.S. Oka, J) is a member. Several orders were passed after the 18th November 2016 dealing with the issue of implementation of the directions issued by this Court. As recorded in the order dated 24th August 2017, the final decision in the matters was substantially challenged by the State Government by way of a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. The challenge failed and as of today, the decision has become final.

3. On 22nd August 2017, these Petitions were listed before this Bench for considering compliance of various directions. On that date, an affidavit was filed by the State Government of Smt. Archana Shirke, Under Secretary of the Environment Department placing on record a copy of the Notification dated 10th August 2017. On the basis of the said Notification, a contention was raised by the learned Advocate General that the declaration granted in terms of Clause (xii) of Paragraph 93 of the final judgment has become inoperative as there is an amendment to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. On 22nd August 2017, the submissions were heard for considerably long time. We had heard the learned counsel representing various parties as well as the learned Advocate General. Though the submissions were substantially heard, the same were not concluded. That is how the matters were ordered to be listed at 11.00 a.m on 23rd August 2017. What transpired on 23rd August 2017 in this Court is noted in detail in Paragraph 4 of our earlier order dated 24th August 2017. Relevant part of the said paragraph reads thus:

“4. ...As submissions were not concluded, the matters were kept yesterday at 11.00 a.m. When the matters were called out yesterday at 11.00 am, this Bench made the learned Advocate General aware of the prima facie view formed by this Court after hearing the arguments at length on 22nd August 2017. Only object of pointing out prima facie view before the submissions were to be concluded was to give an opportunity to the learned Advocate General firstly to seek instructions from the State Government and secondly to address the Court on the prima facie view expressed by this Court. There is a consistent practice followed by this Court to express prima facie view so that best is brought out of the members of the Bar. Prima facie view expressed by this Court was that on the basis of the amendment brought about by the notification dated 10th August 2017, the directions issued by this Court as regards silence zone cannot be held to be inoperative and in any event, the State Government will have to make an application for review or modification of the final Judgment. This Court also expressed a prima facie view that since what is held in clause (xii) of paragraph 93 reproduced above was not based only on clause 3 of the Schedule which has been deleted by the amendment, in absence of any application for modification, the oral plea of the learned Advocate General cannot be considered. This Court also expressed a prima facie view that if the submissions of the learned Advocate General are correct, a part of the Judgment will have to be modified which has to be done by the same Bench which has passed the final Judgment and Order as per Chapter XXX of the Bombay High Court Rules