PETITION BEFORE PARLIAMENT OF INDIA
Chapter-II Part-V Para-61 to 105

HOME

 Gist of My Sufferings | Announcement | INDEX | Covering Letter | Main Petition | Competancy of Parliament | Chapter-II Part-I | Chapter-II Part-II | Chapter-II Part-III | Chapter-II Part-IV | Chapter-II Part-V Para - 1 to 10 | Chapter-II Part -V Para 11 to 25 | Chapter-II Part- V Para 26 to 40 | Chapter-II Part- V Para- 41 to 60 | Chapter-II Part-V Para-61 to 105 | Vohra Committee Report | RIGHTS OF CITIZENS AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS ACT

61. That the object of the Petitioner was just to break the sabotage caused by the said Mafiadom, in the Administration of Justice, as such when he reported by the Court Peshkar of the Honble High Court that Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. as his Lordship then was, taken affidavits of the both side parties in the matter No.3028 of 1991, at his residence to study the actual facts in the matter, the Petitioner decided to withdraw his aforesaid Application for according sanction, as such on 25th June 1992 he tender his unconditional apology withdrawing his application for according sanction, and sent letter in the same manner as was forwarded Application for according sanction, photocopy of which is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure: R-4".

62. That when Contempt Proceeding was moved against the Petitioner for Rule by the Advocates of the said Mafia Leader Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala Honble High Court directed to serve the copy of the Application upon the Petitioner. This was well known to the said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala that if the copy of the application is served upon the Petitioner, than obtaining of the Rule may not be so easy. As such he and his Solicitors Shri Kishan Lal Bagaria, Solicitors of M/S. B.M. Bagaria & Company, Solicitors, made a tricky plan to show the service of the copy of the Application upon the Petitioner. For the success of such tricky plan, Shri Kishan Lal Bagaria, Solicitors of M/S. B.M. Bagaria & Company, Solicitors knowing fully send clerk from his firm at the noon time, when there were no scope of availability of the Petitioner at his residence. Accordingly, on 13.9.1991 one person claiming his name as Jagneswar Sinha, allegedly from 9th Floor, Bamboo Villa, 168, A. J. Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta-14 being the Office of the Income Tax Department came at the residence of the Petitioner with claim that he is from Income Tax Department and to serve a Notice upon the Petitioner. Wife of the Petitioner was not instructed to receive any such Notice, as such she said that it may be better if he note down his name and address on a Paper, so the Petitioner will collect the same from him. Accordingly said clerk of Shri Kishan Lal Bagaria, Solicitors of M/S. B.M. Bagaria & Company, Solicitors note down his alleged name along with his false address 9th Floor, Bamboo Villa, 168, A. J. Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta-14. Photocopy of the said hand written Paper along with subsequent noting made by the Petitioner in the evening is annexed herewith as "Annexure: R-5". When said person note down his alleged name and address, suddenly it was came in the mind of the wife of the plaintiff, that why she should not take delivery of the Notice from the Income Tax Department, after showing it to Land lord Shri Abdul Mannan Khan, who is also qualified Advocate. As such wife of the Petitioner go down along with the said person, but when both of them reached at the out side of the Office of the Abdul Mannan Khan, which was situated at Ground Floor, of the respective building, the said clerk of Shri Kishan Lal Bagaria, Solicitors of M/S. B.M. Bagaria & Company, Solicitors fled from the scene. This was caused some doubt about some dubious act of the person. However, Petitioner tried to find out the said person at the given address of the Income Tax Department, but failed to trace him out. However, subsequently when Petitioner wanted to know that how Rule in Contempt Proceedings was issued without serving the Copy of the Petition, Shri Kishan Lal Bagaria, Solicitors of M/S. B.M. Bagaria & Company, Solicitors refused to disclose related informations, which causes strong doubts. Subsequently, upon enquiry this was found that date and time given in the Affidavit of Service, filed to obtain Rule in the Contempt Proceedings is the same i.e. 13.9.1991 when said person came to the then residence of the Petitioner claimed his name as Jagneswar Sinha, from 9th Floor, Bamboo Villa, 168, A.J.Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta-14. In the said Affidavit of Service knowing fully false claim was made to obtain the Rule by manipulation that Petitioner refused to receive the Copy of the Application.

63. That the Petitioner prepared one List of dates based on affidavits filed by the Petitioner, with reference to said matter No.3028 of 1991 of the Honble Kolkata High Court, in the said Contempt proceeding and Application Under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code and objection or reply filed by the said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala, a copy of the same is already annexed hereinbefore and marked as "Annexure: R-6".

64. That in fact, under ill advice from Shri Kishan Lal Bagaria, Solicitors of M/S. B.M. Bagaria & Company, Solicitors intention of the said Mafia was to make bias the Shyamal Kumar Sen J., as then he was, of the Kolkata High Court against the Petitioner, as such said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala knowing fully made false allegation that Petitioner is a habitual criminal and convicted in a Criminal Case, referring the matter in which in fact Mr. Jayanta Kumar Das Gupta the then presiding Officer of the Learned Court 5th Munsif, Alipore, lost his Judicial service, as a first such dismissal in the Judicial History of Indian Judiciary.

65. That in considerations of such criminal acts with regards to the Administration of Justice Petitioner filed an Application Under Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code, before Honble Kolkata High Court interalia citing the evidences of such false statement as well as said false Affidavit of Service. When Honble High Court passed an order for hearing of the both the matters (Contempt Proceedings and Application Under Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code) analogously, this was become quite clear to said Mafia and his said Solicitors that they are in real trouble, as such on the one hand they managed that hearing of the said matter should not take place at any cost, and on the other hand they taken help from dreaded criminal miscreants with the help of another Mafia Manik Chand Sethia, being the front man of Shri Chandan Basu, son of Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, besides Police support, with sole purpose to compel the Petitioner and his family to flea from Kolkata, if they wants to survive at all. They managed with the Court staff, thus with utter surprise said Contempt proceeding was started going down in the cause list of respective Bench of Honble High Court, than started listed as Last matter of the List. As the Last matter of the List prevailed for several days and finally gone out of the List. As a result, Petitioner was left not any other choice, but to left from the running Court cases, and flees from Kolkata along with his family Members to survive.

66. That under the strategy to sabotage each and every Court Proceedings against the Petitioner to blackmail the Petitioner said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala started to influence one after another advocate of the Petitioner. As a result, this was become impossible for the Petitioner to get justice. This was become, more clear when Bar Council of West Bengal rejected Two Applications filed by the Petitioner against criminal misconducts of respective Advocates, without hearing on merit but dismissed just by passing Resolutions, as if the Bar Council of West Bengal was not a Court under the Advocates Act, but a mere Association of Advocates and concerned with the interests of its Members, as such ignoring the professional misconduct of the brethren Advocates and further ignoring the Advocates Act. As such Petitioner against such Orders passed by passing Resolutions, filed Appeals before Bar Council of India, which never come-up for hearing. This is belief of the Petitioner that those Appeals might have been disposed off in the back of the Petitioner.

67. That since the said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala was understood that all of his tricks to blackmail the Petitioner have been failed, and in the meantime one Politician Congress Member of Legislative Assembly Dr. Manash Bhuinya, agreed to raise the whole issue in West Bengal Assembly and fixed 22nd February 1991 for the same. But it is assumed that under double dealership said Mr. Manash Bhuinya, M. L. A., informed his intentions to any person belongs to said Mafiadom. As a result said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala arranged some settlement with the said Politician Congress Member of Legislative Assembly Dr. Manash Bhuinya on the one hand and hatched a Plot to kill 18 years son of the Petitioner under Police protection. As a result, on 22nd February 1991 when Petitioner reached at the residence of the said Congress Member of Legislative Assembly Dr. Manash Bhuinya, he informed the Petitioner that plan of his statement in Assembly was changed. As such Petitioner returned to his home. But, within few minutes from his returning at home, at about 11.00 AM of the same day i.e. 22nd February 1991, under a hatched plot a Truck Accident under Police protection was staged, to kill son of the Petitioner, in which both the legs of the son of the Petitioner were severally damaged. Son of the Petitioner was able to stand on his legs only after treatment for more than 30 Months and after 22 Major Operations, in Kolkata at Kolkata Medical Research Institute of Kolkata and Holy Family Hospital of Delhi. That considering the connivance of Dr. Manash Bhuinya, M. L. A., Petitioner send him a Letter dated 5th April 1993 by Registered Post asking him that "can he explain with regards to his changed attitude and behave and reasons for postponement of the program to raise the issue in West Bengal Assembly on 22nd February 1991". The Photocopy of the said Letter is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure R-7".

68. That under the aforesaid criminal conspiracy the said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala and his associates on the one side they strongly intended to implicate the Petitioner, with the help and under criminal conspiracy with respective lawyers, but at the same time, on the other hand and with the help of the Calcutta Police as stated hereinbefore arranged / staged Truck accidence. From the aforesaid developments, this was ample clear to the Petitioner that the said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala adopted both the ways simultaneously with a concrete plan to grab the properties of the Petitioner after putting him in Jail by implicating false Contempt proceedings, with the help of the respective Advocates, as referred hereinafter. In the First Information Report, Police recorded false direction of the running of the Truck. Upon enquiry this was revealed that the said Truck was standing since 9.00 morning, in a Compound situated in the Northern Side of the Road. In the said Compound there were several Almirah Factories, as such Alimirahs were loaded with intentions to create confusions in the minds of the factory people. Photocopy of the First Information Report recorded by the Police is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure: R-8" As this is stated that the said Truck accident was result of the conspiracy hatched to kill the son of the Petitioner, under Police Protection, as such in the said First Information Report false fact were recorded by the Police that Truck was from the West to East, while Truck moved from North to South and damaged a Pan Shop and Shutter of another Shop both situated just in the South of the Road. Immediately after the accident, when Petitioner reached at the accident side, where till then his son was under the Tyre of the Truck, Petitioner seen that Truck came from the North side Compound with clear intention to kill son of the Petitioner. Therefore, false recording of Truck direction were under the part of Plot hatched under connivance between the said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala and respective Police Officials.

69. That in considerations of aforesaid measurable situation of severe magnitude being the rarest of rare as the infringement of the fundamental rights, including blockade of the rights to Justice, petitioner decided to file a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. For this purpose, after a long initiation he met with Senior Lawyer of the Supreme Court and Ex-Solicitor General of India learned. Mr. A. D. Giri, Sinior Lawyer at his residence at Allahabad. After going through the facts learned Mr. A. D. Giri, Senior Lawyer was satisfied and suggested the Petitioner to appoint one Delhi based Senior Lawyer like learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium. With this purpose, learned Mr. A. D. Giri Senior Lawyer personally came to Delhi and discusses the issue in detail in Kanishka Hotel, where learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate was also present. Thereafter learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate studied the merits of the matter and decided to prepare a letter to be sent by the petitioner to the Governor of West Bengal, before filing such Writ Petition. Accordingly under the supervision of learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate, his one of the Junior Advocate prepared draft of such representations to be sent by the Petitioner, which Petitioner sent to the Governor of West Bengal. Photocopy of a Money Receipt issued along with Letter Dated 6th December 1993, and draft forwarded by and 1st page of List of Dates prepared by the Petitioner and checked by learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate to the Petitioner are annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure R-9, R-10, R-11 and R-12" respectively.

70. That, as per advice from the learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate, and after elapse of about three months from the said letter to the Governor of West Bengal, Petitioner tried to meet with learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate, but under most surprisingly every time he declined to meet with the Petitioner for the reasons best known to him. But, after several attempts, one day learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate suddenly appear on telephone and says that he had ask the learned Mr. S. Murlidhar, Advocate to prepare a Writ Petition in that effect. But, when Petitioner meet with learned Mr. S. Murlidhar, Advocate, at his Mayur Vihar Chamber, learned Mr. Murlidhar, Advocate, said that he is convinced that on the merit his matter is very strong, but now a days Supreme Court declined to accept any Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Such development shows that learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate, instead of direct refusal, arranged refusal through the learned Mr. S. Murlidhar, Advocate, under some influence or otherwise decided not to file such Writ Petition, thus become a party himself in such infringement. In fact before such development, the said Mafiadom using their criminal strategy influenced several lawyers of the Petitioner, either on some false representation or otherwise, so petitioner was not surprised by such development. However, in search of one Senior Lawyer, Petitioner wrote a stereo typed letter to about Hundred Senior Advocates of the Supreme Court, including learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate. No one except learned. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate replied that if the Petitioner can convince that he is a genuine litigant, than he can take up his case. Receiving such letter with such surprising contentions just after few month from the said Draft forwarded by him, Petitioner was socked and wrote back that he have apprehensions that his opposite parties must have approached learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate, otherwise after knowing the matters on merit relates to infringement of fundamental rights of the Petitioner he should not have questioned the genuinity of the Petitioner, when earlier, he only after satisfied about the merit of the matter prepared the said draft. In reply thereof learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate, admitted that "As far as the merit your matter is concerned I am prima facie satisfied that there is a cause of action at least to file a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for appropriate reliefs." In his said reply letter he also wrote that if the Petitioner offer him a written apology and withdraw the sentence referred in paragraph 4 of his letter, he would be in a position to advise the petitioner appropriately further in the matter. But, the Petitioner not tendered any apology, as he has done nothing wrong. Photocopy of the correspondence with learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Lawyer, are annexed herewith and marked as "Annexures :R-13-16" respectively.

71. That under the close Nexus with Shri Jyoti Basu, and other powerful politicians from West Bengal, the said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala established himself so powerful, that once Petitioner negotiated with one Promoter for development of his properties. Said Promoter claimed that he had very good relations with Shri Hashim Abdul Halim, the Speaker of West Bengal Legislative Assembly. This was pre-condition of the Petitioner before the said Promoter that he never can ask the petitioner for any compromise with the said Mafiadom, which was agreed upon by the said Promoter. But, with the most surprisingly, when the Petitioner meet with Shri Hashim Abdul Halim, Shri Halim immediately offered that he will mediate the matter and arranged settlement in the matter calling Mr. Fatehpuria, the relation of the said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala. However, petitioner refused immediately the aforesaid offer as such meeting with Shri Hashim Abdul Halim was closed. Petitioner sent his protest letter dated 24th July 1993 to Shri Hashim Abdul Halim, The Speaker of West Bengal Legislative Assembly by Registered Post. Photocopy of the said letter is annexed hereinbefore and marked as "Annexure: B-9". The conduct of Shri Hashim Abdul Halim as aforesaid was not an act in his capacity as Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly and same can be examined and enquired by the Central Bureau of Investigation to examine the Nexus between said Mafia and politicians.

72. That Petitioner wrote several letters to the Central Vigilance Commission, in respect of Criminal misconduct adopted by the Income Tax Department and the Railway Authority for the gain and benefit of the said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala and his associates. In response of one such letter the then Secretary of the Commission Mr. Bhure Lal through his Private Secretary called the Petitioner by Memo letter Secy/Com/96 dated 6th November 1996. The Petitioner met with Shri Bhure lal and placed more than hundred pages of the documents to him. That after going through the documents and after satisfying with arguments forwarded by the Petitioner, Mr. Bhure Lal called one of his sub-ordinate and dictated order in presence of the Petitioner, for appropriate actions. But thereafter in the matter Commission became mum, for the reasons best known to it. Photocopy of the said letter dated 6th November 1996 is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure: R-17".

73. That the said Mafiadom is still using black money powers against the Petitioner thus the authorities are not taking appropriate actions to curb the black money. That the members of said Mafiadom under connivance with each other spending black money in big way against the Petitioner. As per the reports from the local, this was reported to the Petitioner that the said Mafiadom in recent past entered in an agreement with antisocial to kill the Petitioner. This cannot be proved unless concerned antisocial were nabbed by the Police. But, another associate of the said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala namely Manik Chand Sethia conveyed his threats to the Petitioner admitting before one Mina Lal Bhansali, that "he has paid Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five Lakhs) to one Chittaranjan Ganguly and Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) to one local anti-socials out of total agreed payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs), fixed for total object to grab the properties of the Petitioner." Shri Mina Lal Bhansali advised the Petitioner to compromise with the said Mafiadom. As such the Petitioner put such information on record by sending the Letter dated 17th February 2001 by Registered Post to Shri Mina Lal Bhansali, with copy to said Manik Chand Sethia. True copy of the said Letter is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure: R-18".

74. That Petitioner regularly approached appropriate authorities, but justice was denied to him. Here Photocopies of some of such representations and other documents are referred:-

Letter dated 21st December 1994 addressed to Mr. Vijay Ramarao (who was also a Member of Vohra Committee), Director Central Bureau of Investigation, is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure: R-19".

Demand Notice dated 3rd March 1997, seeking protection of Fundamental Rights, addressed to Union of India, through Cabinet Secretary, and other several authorities and annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure: R-20".

Letter dated 21st January 1995 to Shri K. Padmanabhaiyya, the then Union Home Secretary.

Application dated 10th October 1997 to Mr. N.N. Vohra, the Principle Secretary to the Prime Minister of India and Convener of the then High Powered Committee on Criminalisation of Politics appointed by the Union Government and also to two other Members of the Committee, for appropriate directions in the matter, and is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure: R-22".

Letter dated 4th February 1998 to Shri K. R. Narayanan, the then Honble President of India and is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure: R-23".

Letter dated 21st May 1999 to S. P. Bharucha J. as His Lordship then was and M. Srinivasan, J. and annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure: A-24".

News item published in the Amrita Bazaar Patrika dated 15th November 1994 under heading "BASU ACCUSED OF MISAPPROPRIATION" is already annexed here in before and Marked as "Annexure: G-1".

75. That in considerations of aforesaid measurable situation of severe magnitude being the rarest of rare as the infringement of the fundamental rights, including blockade of the rights to Justice, and atrocities suffered by him and considering the possible root cause behind such infringements, Petitioner decided to file Public Interest Litigations, which ultimately can also protect his own fundamental Rights too, as he is also a member of public. As such on 9th August 1995, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition based on Vohra Committee Report against the Union of India and the Election Commission of India as a Public Interest Litigation and moved before Honble Supreme Court in person. The same was registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No.559/95 and filed with interalia prayers that a Writ of Mandamus should be issued directing the Election Commission of India "to evolve a method to restrict the candidature of a person, facing criminal proceeding in any Court of Law, for the Membership of Parliament or State Legislative Assemblies, with the submissions that Law, Rules and Regulations should have been made inserting interalia the following provisions;-

    1. No person can contest Elections for Parliament or State Assembly, if he is accused in any criminal proceedings and Police prima-facie had satisfied with the complaint by filing charge sheet, till he not discharged or acquitted from such criminal case by a Court of Law;

    2. No person can contest elections for Parliament or State Assembly unless declares all the properties and business of his family members, before the Election Commission;

76. That the said Writ Petition was moved on 29th August 1995 by the Petitioner in person before the Honble Chief Justices Court presided by A.M.Ahmadi, C.J. as his Lordship then was, and after hearing the same Honble Court, adopt a hands off policy and dismissed the said petition with observations that Court cant do anything in such matter. But, subsequently Honble Chief Justices Court presided by A.M.Ahmadi, C.J. as his Lordship then was, admitted another Writ Petition based on the self-same Vohra Committee Report, which was filed by one Powerful Politician, then and now Member of Rajya Sabha Mr. Dinesh Trivedy, and moved by renowned lawyers of the Supreme Court, Ld. Mr. Shanti Bhusan, then by Ram Jeth Malani etc., and registered as Civil Writ Petition No.664/95. After knowing such fact on 1st December 1995, Petitioner filed another Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-18372/95 with object to restore his earlier Civil Writ Petition No.559/95 with the prayers interalia to pass a decree under Article 142 of the Constitution that in compliance of clause (4) of Article 32 of the Constitution of India the Jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been seized to dismiss any Writ Petition filed as remedy for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, without hearing on the merit.

77. That on 29th January 1996 when Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-18372/95 was listed for hearing along with the said Civil Writ Petition No. 664/95, Honble Chief Justices Court presided by A.M.Ahmadi, C.J. as his Lordship then was, accepted the argument forwarded by the Petitioner and said that they are not dismissing the Writ Petition of the Petitioner, rather disposing the same by passing judicial order and passed the following Order:-

"A Writ Petition ( C) No. 664/95 in relation to the same matter in issue based on the Vohra Committee Report is already under consideration in which the respondents were directed to produce the authenticated copy of the Report, which has since been done. Since one Public Interest Litigation is already before the Court and carriage of proceedings is not stated to be in wrong hands, we do not see any reason to multiply petitions on the same issue and, therefore, we dispose of this petition on that ground."

The Photocopy of the certified of the said order is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure: S-1".

78. That when the Honble Court was dictating the said order, one Advocate stood up and wanted to know the fate of Third Writ Petition filed by his client and moved by him, on the same issue, Honble Court observed that all other petitions will face the same fate. Then the said Advocate objected and in response thereof, Honble Chief Justices Court presided by A.M.Ahmadi, C.J. as his Lordship then was, observed that in that event Mr. Chorarias (the Petitioner herein and therein) Petition will also be heard together with all other Petitions relating to the same matter in issue. But, when the Petitioner obtained Certified Copy of the Order of the day, he found that subsequent order passed by Honble Chief Justices Court presided by A.M.Ahmadi, C.J. as his Lordship then was, was not the part of the said Order.

79. That in considerations of such certified copy of order, Petitioner decided to place the matter in the notice of the Honble Court and as such on 12th February 1996 the Petitioner filed another Writ Petition (Civil) D-2595/96 calling attention of the Honble Court about such anomaly and with prayer interalia to pass Judgment in all petitions on the same issue. But, when on 11th March 1996 Honble Chief Justices Court presided by A.M.Ahmadi C.J. as his Lordship then was, dismissed the Petition.

80. That this was the complete injustice against the Petitioner in respect of the rights covered by the principle of the copy right laws as innovation of the prayers referred in the said Writ Petition (Civil) No.559/95 by the Petitioner though have been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court by order dated 2nd May, 2002 in Civil Appeal No. 7178 of 2001 (Union of India V Association for Democratic reforms and another) directing to the Election Commission is directed to call for information on affidavit by issuing necessary order in exercise of its power under Art 324 of the Constitution of India from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or a State Legislature as a necessary part of his nomination paper, furnishing therein, information on the following aspects in relation to his/her candidature, but name of innovator of the said idea the Petitioner were not recognised for the same.

81. That in view of the said judgment dated 2nd May, 2002 in Civil Appeal No. 7178 of 2001 (Union of India V Association for Democratic reforms and another) it is clear that the said order should have been passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.559 of 1995 filed by the Petitioner.

82. That on 6th December 1995 the Petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96, with the interalia following prayers:-

( i) Issue direction to the Respondent No.1 to 8 (therein) to make their respective Reports and facts lying with their Departments/Sub-ordinates relating to the matters referred under Annexure D to N, before Honble Court for appropriate direction, declaration or order;

(ii) Issue direction to the Respondent No.6 (therein) (Central Bureau of Investigation) to investigate in the matter referred under Annexure O and P hereinabove and (to) submit its Report before Honble Court for appropriate direction or declaration or order;

(iii) Issue direction to the Respondent No.8 (therein) (Calcutta Municipal Corporation) not to issue completion certificate with regards to constructions are made at the Premises No.5/1/1A and 5/1/1B, Cornfield Road, Calcutta, till final hearing of the Writ Petition.

83. That the said Writ Petition, was a Public Interest Litigation, but in the Paragraph 6 and in 4th line of page 14 of the Petition, Petitioner submitted interalia that "The Petitioner crave leave to file a separate Writ Petition for appropriate reliefs for himself as such for the brevity he is not mentioning all details relates to his victimization, but just to support his pleadings he annexed herewith the photo-copies of the following communications without their annexures,". When the Writ Petition was listed before the Honble Court presided G. N. Ray J, as his Lordship then was, and after hearing of the same leave G. N. Ray J, as his Lordship then was, observed that this leave appears that the matters referred in the Writ Petition have been clubbed together, with regards to the matters of the public interest, as well as of the infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner himself, so it is better that petitioner should withdraw his Writ Petition to file a fresh Writ Petition. Therefore, in considerations of such observation made by the G. N. Ray J, as his lordship then was, Petitioner withdrawn his said Writ Petition on 19th January 1996 to file a fresh.

84. That on 7th February 1996 Petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 151/96 with the prayers interalia as follows:-

MAKE, necessary Rules under sub-clause ( C) Under Clause (1) Under Article 145 for filing of Writ Petition definable as "appropriate proceedings" of the Civil in nature in compliance of clause (1) of Article 32 to ensure that the right to remedy for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights is guaranteed and to ensure the hearing of the matters relating to violation of Fundamental Rights on merit

ISSUE, directions to the STATE to make appropriate change and/or amendment in law within one year as suggested under Schedule "A" therein

Under the aforesaid Schedule petitioner made detailed suggestions to change and amend the law relates to Representatives of Peoples Act, Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code, Official Secrets Act, and also filed a Model draft of Civil Procedure Code, which was also forwarded by the Petitioner on 3rd March 1995 Registered Post to A.M.Ahmadi, CJ., as His Lordship then was, as referred hereinbefore.

85. That on 29th March 1996 upon hearing of the Petition Honble Chief Justices Court presided by A. M. Ahmadi C.J. as his lordship then was, observed that the Petitioner has done a very good work and advised to the Petitioner to forward his model of new Civil Procedure Code to the Chairman of the Law Commission of India. When Petitioner ask, whether he can refer Honble Courts observations, Honble Court says that Court have no objection in it. Accordingly, Petitioner forwarded the said Model of the Civil Procedure Code, by Registered Post to the Honble Chairman of the Law Commission of India. However, Honble Court passed the following order in the said Writ Petition:-

Place this petition before Honble the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side to consider the regulations of Public Interest Litigation Petitions.

The Photocopy of the certified copy of the said order is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexures :S-2"

86. That the Petitioner understood that the said Order passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.151 of 1996 was not in accordance with the provisions provided under Article 145(1) ( c) of the Constitution, nor any order was passed to frame the Rules and Guidelines as suggested by the Petitioner to deal with each and every Writ Petition filed Under Article 32 of the Constitution before their listing for hearing by a Bench to fulfill the objective of Article 32 of the Constitution and to ensure expectations of the founding fathers of the Constitution, and to prevent vicious Writ Petitions.

87. That this was a matter of the fact that in the said Writ Petition (Civil) No.151 of 1996 a Model of a New Civil Procedure Code was suggested in detail by the Petitioner. This Model was created and developed by and was based on original thought of the Petitioner. In fact in the year of 1983 Petitioner forwarded the same to the then Law Minister of India Shri Asok Sen, by Registered Post. As it already stated that before referring the said Model in the said Writ Petition, the Petitioner also forwarded the same to A. M. Ahmadi, CJ, as the then His Lordship was, by letter dated 3rd March 1995. In the aforesaid order with regard to the said Model there were no directions or order were issued, but, subsequently, on the same subject one Committee headed by Learned Dr. Abhisek Singhvi, Senior Lawyer of the Supreme Court was constituted by A.M.Ahmadi C.J. as his lordship then was. This is matter of the great concerned that whether innovator of anything should be entitled to recognised for that particular work or the same should be recognised in the account of others. This is a grate injustice against the Petitioner that a Committee was constituted on the basis of the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner, but without recognising him. This was further gross injustice with the Petitioner that recent amendments in Civil Procedure Code were adopted from the Model Draft filed before the Supreme Court, through the said Writ Petition, but his work was not recognised against the principle prevailing worldwide.

88. That on 20th March 1996 the petitioner filed a Petition before the Election Commission of India that in the consideration of Article 324 (1) read with Article 326 of the Constitution "Commission invite following information on oath or affirmation from the intending candidates for such elections to furnish along with nomination papers:-

    1. Whether any Criminal Proceeding in any Court of law is pending? if yes ; please state:

      2. (i ) Name of the Police Station, within Constituency or outside the Constituency ;

      (ii) Number of Crime in respective Police Station?

      (iii) Date of Crime according to F.I.R. registered in Police Station ?

      (iv) reference of law under which crime is registered ?

    2. Whether, Charge Sheet is filed by the investigating authority in the above referred Crime Number? If, yes, please state: -

      1. Name of the Court, in which charge sheet is filed?

      2. Number of the Crime Registered in the Court?

      3. Date of Charge Sheet?

      4. Reference of Law under which Charge Sheet is filed?

    3. The present status of the proceedings?

    4. If the Criminal Proceedings are pending more than one, similar informations should be provided in respect of each such proceeding."

The Three Copies of the said Petition were deposited in the Office of the Election Commission of India, against Acknowledgement.

89. That after delivery of the said Petition to the Election Commission issued a Notification asking the intending candidates to give certain details with reference to criminal cases, if pending or disposed off against them, but, in a surprising manner one amongst the then Election Commissioners Mr. G.V.G. Krishnamurthy, stolen the aforesaid idea from the paragraph 9 of the said Petition and claimed that Notification issued by the Commission in that respect was based on ideas developed by him.

90. That in considerations of the proceedings held in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, Petitioner on 15th May 1996 filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96. Till recently, when he go through the Judgment dated 10th April 2002, Petitioner was not aware about the principle of finality of orders of the Supreme Court decided by the Nine Judge Bench, but in consideration of the scheme of the Constitution and most important core principle of the jurisprudence that Justice must be above all, in the said Writ Petition A.M.Ahmadi C.J. as his Lordship then was made as sole respondent. Otherwise, for his own interest Petitioner should have restrained to do so, considering that Honble judges are also Human being and making A.M.Ahmadi C.J. as his Lordship then was, as sole respondent in the said Writ Petition may prompt other Judges of the Honble Court to become bias against the Petitioner, or prompt them to abuse the Judicial Proceedings against the Petitioner. The Petitioner, say and submit that although in the aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96 A.M.Ahmadi, C.J., as then his Lordship was, made sole respondent, but in no way the object of the Petitioner was to cause any disregards for the Judiciary or for any Honble Judge of the Supreme Court, including A.M.Ahmadi, C.J., as then his Lordship was. As already stated that being severally aggrieved from the aforesaid proceedings, petitioner was not aware that what should be the remedial proceeding, other than a Writ Petition in which A. M. Ahmadi, C.J., as then his Lordship was, to be made sole Respondent. The only object of the Petitioner was to get Justice as Guaranteed under Article 32 of the Constitution.

91. That on the same day i.e. 15th May 1996 the Petitioner also filed another Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8305/96 praying therein interalia to issue Directions upon the Election Commission of India interalia to suspend and / or withheld the name of any person from the Electoral Rolls, if he is an accused in any Criminal Proceeding and Investigating Authority Prima-facie satisfied about his crime by filing Charge Sheet, till he will be not declared innocent person by a Court of Law, immediately after such informations about such Criminal Proceedings received by the Commission.

92. That in considerations of withdrawal of his said earlier Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96 from the Honble Court, and observations made by G.N.Ray, J. as then his Lordship was, on 21-05-1996, Petitioner, filed fresh Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 8495/96, with interalia following prayers:-

    1. ISSUE, directions to the Respondent (therein) Nos. 1 to 8 to take corrective measures in respect of all illegal Orders, Directions, Notifications, Contracts, Agreements, Sanction or otherwise issued in favour of any of the Company of the Respondent (therein) No.9 his relations or associates under the signature of any authority of the Respondent (therein) No.1 to 8 by disobeying the directions of the law for the pecuniary advantage of the Respondent (therein) No.9;

    2. ISSUE, directions to appoint an Court Commissioner to go through all documents relating to all matters referred in the Writ Petition and submit its report before the Honble Court with the list of the Public Servants who are responsible for the disobedience of the directions of the Law for appropriate directions by the Honble Court;

The object of the instant Writ Petition was to get restored his Rights to Remedies against blackmailing activities run by the said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala and his associates.

93. That the said earlier Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96 was withdrawn by the Petitioner under observations from the G. N. Ray, J. as then his Lordship was, in considerations of reference of such leave from which it was apparent that the matters relating to Public Interests along with the infringements of the Petitioners own fundamental Rights were clubbed together, as such when he filed fresh Writ Petition (Criminal) No.D-8495/96, as was understood by the Petitioner, the said earlier Writ Petition, after its withdrawal was not exist, as such petitioner in his fresh Writ Petition not mentioned any reference with regards to said earlier Writ Petition(Criminal) No.3/96. When on 15th May 1996 Petitioner filed a writ Petition in which A. M. Ahmadi, C.J., as then his Lordship was, made sole Respondent, therefore, within 6 days there from, on 21st May 1996 there cannot be any reason for intentional hiding of such fact. But, according to the Office Report, not mentioning of such facts relates to withdrawal of earlier Writ Petition was wrong. Without admitting, but for argument sake, even if this was wrong on the part of the Petitioner, even in such case Registry must have listed the matter before the same Court, wherefrom the earlier Writ Petition was withdrawn. But, for the reasons best known to the concerned personnel of the Registry of the Supreme Court, said matter was listed along with aforesaid Two other Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioner, before the Honble Court headed by Dr.A.S.Anand, J as then his Lordship was, otherwise said matter should have been listed for the Court of Honble Mr. G. N. Ray, J. as then His Lordship was.

94. That the Honble Bench of Supreme Court headed by Dr. A.S.Anand, J. as then his Lordship was, on 5th August 1996 in the said Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96 passed the following order:

Upon hearing the petitioner the Court made the following order:

In the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, Honble Chief Justice of India has been impleaded as the only respondent. The submission of the petitioner stripped to its bare essentials, is to set aside the orders of this Court dated 29.8.95; 29.1.96; 11.3.96 and 29.3.96 dismissing Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 559/9; D-18372/95; D-2585/96 and 151/96 passed by a Bench presided over by the learned Chief Justice of India and to restore those Writ Petitions to their original numbers to be heard on merits. The petition is misconceived and untenable. The understanding of the petitioner of the meaning, scope and ambit of Article 32 of the Constitution is, to say the least, wholly fallacious. The writ petition is devoid to merits. It is accordingly dismissed.

The Photocopy of the certified of the order is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexures: S-3" .

95. That the exclusive objective of Petitioner for the filing of the Writ Petition was to see that the most important core principle of the Constitutional Scheme that "Justice must be above all" should be enforced, with the letter and sprit, which on principle upheld by the aforesaid Judgment but then restricted imposing the said condition.

96. That from the above order itself this can be presumed that the Petitioner no way have intended to disregard any Honble Judge of the Honble Supreme Court. If there were any mistake in the said Writ Petition have been occurred on the part of the Petitioner in the said Writ Petition, then this mistake was that the A.M.Ahmadi, C.J., as His Lordship then was, should not have been made sole respondent in the said Writ Petition. If the Petitioner could have aware about the principle of the finality of the final order of the Supreme Court, without ensuring the most important core principles of the jurisprudence that "Justice Must be above all" and that "the whoever he may be the law is still above him" then instead of filing such Writ Petition in which A.M.Ahmadi, C.J., as His Lordship then was made sole respondent, Petitioner might have filed Writ Petition against the said Judgment holding the principle of the finality of the orders of the Supreme Court, overruling the most important core principles of the jurisprudence that "Justice Must be above all" and that "the whoever he may be the law is still above him". But, since A.M.Ahmadi, C.J., as His Lordship then was made the sole respondent, in the said Writ Petition, Dr. A.S. Anand, J., as His Lordship then was, dismissed the Writ Petition (Criminal) No.D-8495 of 1996, (which was filed as a fresh Writ Petition as per suggestion by observation made by G. N. Ray, J as then His Lordship was, after withdrawing the earlier Writ Petition), on 5th August 1996 passed following orders:-

Upon hearing the petitioner the Court made the following ORDER:

Recourse to filing a writ petition under Article 32 for the reliefs sought in the petition is impermissible. That apart W.P. (Crl) No.3 of 1996 filed by the petitioner earlier was dismissed as withdrawn by a Bench of this Court on 19th January 1996. In that writ Petition more or less self-same allegations and reliefs were sought for. That fact has not been disclosed in this writ petition. This is to say the least objectionable. The writ petition is dismissed.

The Photocopy of the certified of the said order and respective Office Report are annexed herewith and marked as, ""Annexures: S-4 & S-5" ." respectively

97. That the Petitioner have suffered same experience as was referred by the Vohra Committee that:

"These syndicates have acquired substantial financial and muscle power and social respectability and have successfully corrupted the government machinery at all levels and yield enough influence to make the task of investigating agencies extremely difficult; even the members of the judicial system have not escaped the embrace of the mafia."

and that the said unscrupulous Businessman turned Mafia Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala and his associates, have tried their best level to embrace a large number of Judicial Officers to legalise their misdeeds and mafia activities against the Petitioner and also influenced several Advocates to help them in their illegal and criminal activities. Such conduct the said Mafia Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala and his associates in large scale was not an easy task and could not have been possible without support from the powerful politicians, who were acted behind the scene.

98. That Five Judge Constitution Bench in its Judgment Dated 10th April 2002 at paragraph-62 (2002) 4 SCC 419) pronounced a very important Judgment and at para 52 and 54 allowed to file curative Writ Petitions, opeming the scope to file fresh Writ Petitions in respect of aforesaid matters, but for the Petitioner he has experienced as were referred, the same scope vanished under imposed condition to file a Certificate from Senior Lawyer of the Supreme Court, which was not in conformity with the interalia following observations at para 62 of the same Judgment (2002) 4 SCC 388) dated 10th April 2002:

"does it, however, mean and imply a closed door even if the order of this Court depicts that the same stands in violation of natural justice adversely and seriously affecting the rights of the parties or the same depicts manifest injustice rendering the order a mockery of justice".

nor was in conformity with the Original Scheme of Article 32 of the Constitution, which allowed filing of Writ Petitions without any support from any Advocate.

99. That the Petitioner approached appropriate respective Judicial authority and other authority including the President of India, Prime Minister of India, Chief Justice of India, Chief Justice of Kolkata High Court demanding appropriate protections and remedies against infringement of his fundamental rights, including obstructions to get justice. But, as the Supreme Court of India without defining the powers, jurisdictions, scope, meaning and ambit of Article 32 of the Constitution departed from its responsibilities recognised by the Six Judge Bench (AIR:1950, Sc: 124, Kania CJ, Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, Mahajan, B.K.Mokherjea, And Das JJ.), upholding that:

"The Supreme Court is thus constituted the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights, and it cannot, consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringement of such rights.";

the scope to ensure enforcement of fundamental right of the Petitioner were compromised, as was proved when his Writ Petitions were dismissed, beyond the scope, meaning and ambit of Article 32 of the Constitution. Although Five Judge Constitutional Bench Judgment dated 10th April 2002, (2002) 4 SCC 388-426

 

100. That in view of severe experience gained by the Petitioner, and opinion of learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Lawyer, the impact caused by the Judgment Dated 10th April 2002, is virtually beyond the scope of his rights of remedies ensured under Article 32 of the Constitution, to file and move such petition. In fact learned Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, Senior Lawyer of Supreme Court, after going through some facts referred in a letter by the Petitioner, also by his letter dated 4th December 1995 replied interalia that "Many thanks for your letter, which combines juristic concern with the intensity of one having suffered personal atrocity.". In fact said letter of learned Mr. Rajiv Dhawan Senior Lawyer and aforesaid correspondence with learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Lawyer, are not less than any Certificate. But, in view of the experiences suffered by the petitioner, under the conditionality imposed by the aforesaid Judgment to furnish a Certificate from a Senior Lawyer, Justice was not restored for the Petitioner. Photocopy of the aforesaid Letter dated 4th December 1995 is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure: S-6".

101. That the Petititoner referred hereinabove about the adjudication matter conducted by the respective alleged Arbitrator Mr. N. Goswami, without any appointent and authority, rather under compelete embracement and gratifiaction from the alleged person filed the alleged dispute case, as such said Mr. N. Goswai, used his alleged Office to insult the Petitioner in a anner, which cannot be adopted by any sensitive person or authority. In this respect photocopy of the Letter sent to him on 28th August 1989 by Regsitered post is annexed herewith and Marked as "Annexure-S-7".

102. That the Petitioner subitted number-less representations against growth of the Mafiadom under its Nexus with Powerful politicians. In this respect they are referred under different part of the Petition. However, Photocopies of some of the documents (not all) and News items are annexed herewith, which will justify that the said Mafiado is ore powerful than Law.

    1. Open Letter to Parliament, sent in Septeber 1997, through the Then Chairman Rajya Sabha and others, and annexed herewith as marked as "Annexure T-1".

    2. Application Dated 19th January 1998 (having pages 122, but here annexed covering 4 Pages of application, to avoid duplications of the Papers, as the most of the Annxures referred therein are annexed herein) to Honble Chief Justice of India, and mmarked as "Annexure-T-2".

    3. Letter No. MP/AJ/1120/95 dated 6th April 1995 to the Prime Minister of India annexed herewith and Marked as "Annexure-T-3".

      4.  

    4. Letter dated 15th march 1995 fro Private Secretary to Shri Jaswant Singh present Finance Minister of India annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure-T-4".

    5. Letter Dated 19th April 1995 to Shri Harkishan Singh Surjeet, the general secretary of CPI(M) Party, with copies to authorities annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure-T-5".

    6. Letter dated 27th August 1990to bar Council of India is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure-T-6".

      7.  

    7. Letter No.383/C5/CC/3P-!/89 IV. Dated 18th March 1989 from the Government of West Bengal, directing to Municipal Authities to take appropriate action against illegal constructions, which were never taken, is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure-T-7".

    8. Lettera dated 18th May 1994 to the Chief Justice of India is annexed herewith and arked as "Annexure-T-8".

    9. Eorandu dated 30th Noveber 1990 to the President and Prime Minister of India is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure-T-9".

    10. Letter dated 27th Septeber 1988 to the Governor of West Bengal and others is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure-T-10".

    11. Letter dated 12th septeber 1988 to the Mayor of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and others is annexed herewith and amrked as "Annexure-T-11".

    12. Two News items published on 18th and 19th Decemmber 1990 are annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure-T-12".

    13. One News item published on 7th May 1990 is annexed hewith and arked as "Annexure-T-13".

    14. Two News Items published on 2nd 3rd November 1995 are annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure-T-14" collectively.

    15. One news Ite published on or about 8th February 1990 is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure-T-15".

    16. Two News Items publishged on 4th and 5th October 1994 are annexed herewith and amrked as "Annexure-T-16".

    17. One news Ite published on 9th August 1996 under heading "I cant break politics-crime-nexus, says Indrajit", is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure-T-17".

  1. The Criminal miscreants are still ready to kill the plaintiff and his family members, as stated hereinbefore, if they can trace out them. As such Petitioner repeatedly requested to Union of India to ensure safety and security of life and properties of the Petitioner and his family members. Intelligence Branch holds enquiries for several times, but provided no security. As such in considerations of prevailing situation depriving him his rights, and in considerations of the aforesaid Judgment in right direction, but the conditionality of certificate from an Senior Advocate, imposed by it, Petitioner filed a Writ Petition before Supreme Court of India under his Right to Remedies guaranteed Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. But, under utter surprise the Supreme Court Registry refused to register the same as a Writ Petition. Such conduct of the Supreme Court registry was to protect the names of powerful and influential wrong doers. Because, Constitution does not empowered to the Supreme Court Registry to refuse to register any Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution or nor the Constitution empowered the Supreme Court itself to assigned any Powers given to it to the Supreme Court Registry. This conduct of the Supreme Court Registry is clearly intended to restrict the Rights to Remedies of the Citizen Guaranteed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The said Writ Petition is posted in website: http://milapchoraria.tripod.com/writpetition. Photocopy of the Letter from the Supreme Court Registry denying Registering his Petition as Writ Petition was gross injustice to the Petitioner and misuse of the powers provided to the Supreme Court Registry, and beyond the scope of the Provisions provided under Article 32 of the Constitution. As such Petitioner send several Letters to Honble Chief Justices of India in that respect, but in vain, proving that Rights of Remedy is not exists. The said

Letter from the Supreme Court Registry and Letters of the Petitioner to Honble Chief Justices are annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure: U-1, U-2, U-3 & U-4" respectively.

104. That the Petitioner approached each and every authority starting from respective Local Police Station and up to the Honble President of India and awaiting till date to get justice, as under Politics-Crime-Nexus, made his life measurable with severe magnitude. At one point of time, the then Home Minister Shri Inderjit Gupta admitted that he cant break politics-crime-nexus, which clearly giving impressions that the Mafia elements are so powerful than the hands of Law.

105. That in view of the facts and circumstances stated herein this is a Fit Petition to be examined in detail by the Petition Committee in larger Public Interests.

(MILAP CHORARIA)

Peitioner

Delhi the Dated 1st July 2003