This follows the order passed earlier this week asking former petroleum minister Satish Sharma to pay Rs 50 lakh for similar arbitrary, malafide and unconstitutional action. Both have to pay exemplary damages within nine months.
The case of Sheila Kauls allotment of some 50 shops in prime sites in the capital was on a worse footing than that of Sharma, who allotted petrol pumps to his favourites. This is because Sheila Kaul violated the guidelines set by herself in carrying on with her nepotistic allotments.
Moreover, Sheila Kaul dealt with commercial sites which would have fetched substantial funds to the government. This loss had to be compensated.
A further reason indicated in the order was that she had ignored the court notice and interim orders for more than two years.
In the end, she filed a statement in which she claimed that she did not realise that her grandsons and others were the beneficiaries. The judges made severe observations against her conduct.
The division bench consisting of Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice B L Hansaria made it clear that it was dealing only with the civil obligations of Sheila Kaul. CBI has filed a first information report against her.
More From This Section
The order clarified that the CBI shall not be influenced by any observations made by the Supreme Court its own conclusion regarding her criminal liability.
The court elaborately quoted its own judgments in the Satish Sharma case and foreign cases to conclude that Sheila Kaul had to compensate the government by the people as she was dealing with public property. It rejected the defence of her counsel, Rajiv Dhavan, that she was merely following the policy of her predecessors.
The amount has to be deposited with the finance secretary. If she does not meet the deadline, the amount shall be recovered from her as arrears of land revenue according to procedures in this regard.
The order was made in a public interest petition filed by lawyer Shiv Sagar Tiwari who opened up the corruption in the allotment of government houses and shops. He wanted deterrent compensation to be imposed on the former minister, but the court was content with exemplary damages.