[Kangana Ranaut property demolition] Bombay High Court rejects plea against appointment of Aspi Chinoy as BMC counsel

The Bombay High Court on Monday berated a petitioner for filing writ petition challenging the appointment of Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy as special counsel for Brihnanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and payment of allegedly exorbitant fees to him by BMC in the case concerning demolition of portion of property belonging to Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut..A Bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale made it clear that it is not for the Court to decide which lawyer a party should appoint and what fees should be paid to the counsel. .Justice Shinde directed Yadav’s lawyer to take instructions to withdraw the petition after taking instruction.."What fees has to be charged is not for the court to decide?” Justice Shinde remarked..The petitioner, one Sharad Yadav had prayed that Chinoys's senior designation be recalled and he and BMC be held responsible for causing loss to public exchequer. Yadav had also prayed that Rs. 82.5 lakhs be paid back into BMC’s treasury by Chinoy. He even sought a CBI probe into alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act..Yadav’s lawyer relied upon an order of the Bombay High Court in Keystone Realtors v. Union of India, wherein Supreme Court had clearly made observations against appointment of Senior Advocates in "petty" matters concerning the demolition of unauthorised structures..Justice Shinde, however, disagreed claiming it was BMC’s prerogative to decide which matters can be termed as “petty”.“What may seem as a simple matter to you may not be simple for BMC. There is a rationale behind appointment of counsels for matters. Who is to decide what is petty and what is not. That is the corporation,” Justice Shinde stated..Justice Pitale too questioned the prayers made by the petitioner while Justice Shinde grilled Yadav regarding his intention behind the petition. “We do not understand why such petitions are filed? What is the intention?”.Yadav’s lawyer replied that BMC should have utilised the public exchequer money for dying workers..However refusing to accept this argument, Shinde reminded the lawyer to argue on points of law.“You are in court of law, restrict your arguments to law. If you are sure about the offence, then your remedy lies elsewhere.”.When the lawyer continued to argue on how this Court was the competent Court for granting remedy, Justice Shinde reprimanded the lawyer for his arguments.“You should have minimum knowledge of law when you invoke this jurisdiction. You are not aware of the law provisions. Please look at CrPC and don’t just argue what you like,” Justice Shinde said..Senior Advocate Anil Sakhare appearing for BMC submitted that if BMC takes a call that a particular issue may have an impact on other cases, then it appoints Senior Advocates in such matters.“This judgment (Kangana’s) was going to have an impact on other matters hence Mr. Chinoy was appointed,” Sakhare said. .Justice Shinde reasoned that no advocate can be held responsible if he loses a matter after he had been appointed by a party with complete knowledge about the fees he charges.."Tomorrow if you are appointed by BMC and if you lose that matter, can you be held responsible? You have your fees, it is corporation’s responsibility to choose to appoint you or not? And in any case BMC deducts tax from the source from the fees paid, so how does it matter," Justice Shinde reiterated..When Yadav’s lawyer sought leave to amend the plea, Justice Shinde reprimanded him for his request.“What will you amend? How can you say relief be granted against an advocate?”The petitioner responded by saying that it involved public money..“Just because we give a patient hearing doesn’t mean you argue whatever is arguable in the world! We do not want lawyers to think that they were not heard. But if you come with a good case on merits we will hear you,” Justice Shinde replied. .The Bench, therefore, rejected the petition while stating that reasons will be recorded separately.