Thursday, May 22, 2008

INDIAN JUDGES UNDER RTI ACT

e –Voice Of Human Rights Watch – e-news weekly

Spreading the light of humanity & freedom

Editor: Nagaraj.M.R....vol.4…issue.21......24/05/2008

Support Amnesty International

Editorial : AN APPEAL TO HONOURABLE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER , NEW DELHI & STATE INFOR MATION COMMISSIONER , BANGALORE.

We at e-voice of human rights watch has requested for following information ( ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ) from honourable supreme court of India , union home ministry & director general of police for Karnataka , as per RTI Act . All the three have failed to provide complete truthful information to us. Hereby , we do once again request you to order the said three – supreme court of India , union home ministry GOI & DGP of Karnataka , to comply with RTI Act & to provide the full information to us at the earliest. JAI HIND. VANDE MATARAM.

Your's sincerely,

Nagaraj.M.R.

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA , UNION HOME MINISTER & DGP OF KARNATAKA

Q1. Why not death sentence to corrupt police who murder people in in lock-up / fake encounters ?

Q2. Why not death sentence to corrupt police who apply 3rd degree torture on prisoners ?

Q3. Why not death sentence to corrupt police , who connive with criminals & backstabs our motherland , it's national security ?

Q4. Don't the police have suo-motto powers to take action in the interest of public welfare , law & order ?

Q5. Daily we see numerous reports of misdeeds by police , public servants , industrialists , etc in the media . Then why not police taking any action with respect to them ?

Q6. nowadays we see numerous reports of scams , scandals by constitutional functionaries , public servants in the media. Instead of wasting money , killing time by prolonging formation of parliamentary committees , judicial commissions , why not subject those accussed public servants to narco analysis , lie deector test , etc to ascertain truth & provide timely justice ? ( new addition )

Q7. If a commonman files a complaint , police / courts wants evidences , witnesses to take action against the rich & mighty crooks. Where as if a rich person just gives a complaint against a poor chap , he is arrested , tortured eventhough there are no evidences , witnesses. Why this double standard ?

Q8. If a poor chap tries to collect evidences as per his fundamental rights or as per RTI ACT , the public servants don't give full , truthfull information. Still , police / courts don't take action against those public servants hiding crimes. Why ?

Q9.why I was not permitted to appear as an "amicus curie" before jain commission of enquiry or supreme court of india probing late prime minister rajiv Gandhi assassination case ?

Q10. The criminal nexus tried to silence me , by closing my news paper , by snatching away my job oppurtunities in government service, by physically assaulting me , by threatening me of false fix-ups in cases & by attempts to murder me. But no action against culprits , why ?

Q11. Whereas , I was enquired number of times by police & intelligence personnel about this case , but the culprits were not enquired even once , why ?

Q12.who compensates the losses I have suffered due to these injustices ? are not police responsible for it ?

Q13. Is it not the duty of police to protect the lives , livelihood of witnesses & all parties involved , both during case & afterwards ?

Q14. How do you monitor & check corrupt police personnel & increase in their family's wealth year after year ?

Q15. While getting appointed into government service from the rank of peon to IAS officer , police verification is mandatory. While appointing to sensitive defense establishments , research institutes in addition to police verification , central intelligence agencies cross-check candidate's background. However is there no background checks of constitutional functionaries , MPs , MLAs , , who are privy to national secrets ? why ?

Q16. Recently , the opposition parties have made allegations during presidential allegations that close relative of one of the front running candidates have swindled public money by their bank , misused public money through one of their NGO. Is it true ?

Q17.has GOI funded any terrorist outfits in india or abroad ?

Q18.india preaches non-violence , panchasheel principles to the world. In india , more than half the population are poor , people are starving to death. Inspite these background , GOI funded & aided terrorist outfits in former east Pakistan ensuring the creation of Bangladesh , GOI has funded & aided terrorist outfits like LTTE , TULF , ETC in srilanka , MQM in Pakistan. In turn these terrorist outfits have murdered thousands of innocents in those countries. Are these acts of GOI just & legal ? Is not GOI responsible for all those murders of innocents ? has GOI paid any compensation to those victims or their family mebers ? why not ?

Q19.within india , to reduce the influence of certain terrorist groups , GOI has funded & aided couter terrorist groups , is it right & legal ?

Q20. In Jharkhand , chattisgarh , etc , the government has armed , trained & funded "salwa judum" to counter naxalites. Salwa judum cadres are terrorizing innocents just like naxalites. Is this action of government just & legal ?

Q21.in india, TADA , POTA is being rampantly misused by police. Even where there are no problems of terrorism , TADA / POTA is being slapped against innocents , even children. In M.M.Hills of Karnataka state , STF personnel charged tribal people with TADA on frivolous charges of taking lunch to veerappan , stiching dress for the forest brigand, etc. where as the prominent political, film , sports personalities who have links with underworld , anti national elements & attended parties hosted by dawood Ibrahim , other dons in gulf countries , else where. But these hi-fi people are not charged with TADA / POTA ? why ?

Q22. Film actor sanjay dutt had contacts with underworld & fully knowing well the criminal objectives of criminals , hid the dangerous arms & ammunition in his home , which were intended for terrorizing public. However mr.dutt is not charged with TADA / POTA instead he is charged with illegal possession of arms act ( which is normally applied to farmers who use illegal home made guns to scare away animals , birds in their farms ). Why this favourable treatment of mr.dutt by police ? prosecution ? is this because dutt is politically mighty & rich ?

Q23. Law is one & same for all , the public servants, police interpretes , enforces it differentially between rich & poor ? why this differentiation ?

Q24.recently in Bangalore police nabbed criminals belonging to international criminal syndicate selling duplicate nokia mobiles. Every nokia mobile comes with 15 digit IMEI number , this number is also used by police for tracking criminals. In consumer dispute at consumer disputes redressal forum Mysore CD 49/05 , nokia company stated that all it's products come with IMEI number only & stated that the product in dispute sold by tata indicom dealer M/S INTOTO COMMUNICATIONS , Mysore are not their's as it doesn't have IMEI numbers. Further nokia stated they don't have any business relationship with either tata indicom or it's dealer. However the tata indicom dealer stated that indeed his products are genuine , first hand products , but doesn't have IMEI numbers . this proves the dealer in collusion with tata company is selling illegal nokia mobile hand sets & cheating the public. These mobiles are evading taxes , as well as these are without IMEI numbers best buy for criminal elements who want to evade police tracking. What police are doing ?

Q25. Who , of which rank among police personnel takes the decision to close a case ie to file "B" report , when after certain time limit no leads are found in investigation ?

Q26. How do you monitor corrupt police personnel , who purposefully fail to investigate case properly , so that either the case can be closed with "B" report or the prosecution fails to prove the case in court ?

Q27. Who among police takes the decision to appeal against the verdict of a lower court , when the prosecution fails ?

Q28. Who took the decision , not to appeal against the argentina court order acquitting mr.quatrochi accussed in bofors scandal ?

Q29. Do you treat all the prison convicts same in the prison or does the notorious big time rich criminals get spacious barracks with tv, news paper , adequate food , medical care , etc while small time criminals , poor are crammed into pig sty like rooms with 60-70 inmates without any basic requirements ?

Q30. What is the status of my complaint made to the DG & IG of police , government of Karnataka on 10/12/2004 ? the copies of complaint was released at press meet at patrakartara bhavan Mysore on same day, even copies were given to police & intelligence personnel ?

Q31. Why no action , reply regarding the complaint till date ?

Q32. Our constitutional frame workers gave legal immunity privileges to certain constitutional functionaries , so that they are not burdened with frivolous court cases & can concentrate on their constitutional duties. But these privileges doesn't cover the individual actions of those public servants like rape , murder , dowry harassment , tax evasion , misuse of office , etc. but still law enforcement / police department is bound to send request to home ministry seeking permission & home ministry sits over files for months. This gives the accussed ample time to destroy evidences. Is it right & legal ?

Q33. Does legal immunity privileges cover their official actions alone ? if not what does it cover ?

Q34. What is the time limit for home ministry to give sanction for the prosecution of tainted constitutional functionaries ?

Q35. How many present MPs , MLAs , MUNICIAPAL CORPORATORS , other people's representatives are facing criminal charges ?

Q36. In the past , how many MPs , MLAs , corporators were facing criminal charges , yearwise since 1987 ? how many of them were eventually convicted ?

Q37. How many MPs , MLAs , prominent film , sports personalities have have contacts with underworld , foreign intelligence agencies ?

Q38. How many of them have attended frequent parties hosted by underworld dons in gulf countries , else where ?

Q39. How many MP , MLA , other people's representatives are wanted by police in various cases . but shown in the police records as absconding but in reality are attending the proceedings of the house as usual ?

Q40. When did smt. Sonia Gandhi became a citizen of india ? did she occupy any public office before naturalization ?

Q41. In india , how many MPs , MLAs , MLCs are of foreign origin or have a spouse of foreign origin ?

Q42. Does smt. Sonia Gandhi have citizenship of any other country ?

Q43. Did she occupy any public office while enjoying dual citizenship ?

Q44. How do you monitor public servants who have spouses of foreign origin & while they are on foreign tour , from national security perspective ?

Q45. Is mr. M.S SUBBA member of parliament a citizen of india ?

Q46. What is the status of complaint made by former union minister mr.subramanya swamy alleging that late P.Mrajiv gandhi's family received money from foreign intelligence agencies ?

Q47. In many cases like mass riots involving certain political parties , when that culprit party comes to power all the cases involving it's partymen are withdrawn by the government orelse prosecution fails to prove it's case & prefers not to appeal. Just remember Bombay riot case involving shiv sainiks & others , when shiv sena – BJP came to power in Maharashtra , all the cases against it's partymen were withdrawn. Are these type of decisions by government just & legal ?

Q48.what damages has been done to india's national security due to mole in the PMO, as alleged by former union minister mr.natwar singh ?

Q49. What action by the government ?

Q50. How many Indians are in the custody of police / military in various foreign countries ?

Q51. How many foreigners are there in Indian prisons ?

Q52. How GOI is protecting the human rights of these prisoners ?

Q53. Is the government paying any compensation to victims of police failures , fix-ups , , who suffer in jail for years & acquitted by courts upon finding them as not guilty ?

Q54. Do you register murder charges / attempt to murder charges against guilty police officers who are responsible for lock-up deaths , fake encounters & 3rd degree torture ?

Q55. How many cases has been filed since 1987 till date ?

Q56. What action has been taken against guilty police officers , STF personnel who were responsible for gross human rights violations , 3rd degree torture , lock-up deaths of innocents in forest brigand veerappan's territory , based on justice A.J.Sadashiva commission findings ? if not why ?

Q57. I , as a citizen of india as my "fundamental duty" hereby do offer my conditional services to GOI & GOK to apprehend corrupt public servants. Are you ready to utilize my services ?

Q58. Police personnel are always in the forefront of containing crimes , mass fury , riots , etc. they suffer more & even their family members suffer threats from the criminal elements. Do the government provide insurance coverage to police & their family members on the lines of defense forces ?

Q59. What is the amount of coverage to a police constable & his family ?

Q60. Who makes the premium contributions ?

Q61. Do the government provide overtime allowance , food allowance to police who daily work beyond 8 hours of duty ?

Q62. Is the government giving any training to police personnel in public interaction , human rights ?

Q63. Is it right to post professionally trained police to sentry , orderly duties of ministers ?

Q64. What is the ratio of police personnel to total population in india since 1987 ?

Q65. IS THE GOVERNMENT GIVING ADEQUATE FOOD, MEDICAL CARE , CLOTHING , LIVING SPACE TO PRISON INMATES , AS REQUIRED BY A NORMAL HUMAN EING ACCORDING TO W.H.O NORMS ?

Q66. Is the forensic science department which conducts narcfo-analysis , lie-detector test , etc under the control of police department ?

Q67. Is it not right to put it under impartial control of NHRC or like bodies ?

Q68. Is the action of some police officers arranging compromise meetings & subtly insisting the poor to tow the line of rich or else face the consequences , is it right & legal ? this happens mostly in real estate matters.

Q69. Did government make any ransom payments to forest brigand veerappan during his various kidnappings ?

Q70. What action has been taken based on revealations by karim telgi during narco analysis about public servants involvement ?

Q71. How many cases of allegations against judges were made in the media about misuse of office , criminal acts by judges from munsiff court to supreme court of India ? since 1947 till date

Q72. are the enquiry report findings, action taken reports of such cases accessible to public ? if not why ?

Q73. what action has been taken against guilty judges ?

Q74. are the guilty judges legally prosecuted in all such cases ? or has it just ended with their resignation from services or his superior judge not allotting him any judicial work ?

Q75. why some high ranking judges are not legally prosecuted for their wrong doings ?

Q76. are judges above law ? are not everybody equal before law ?

Q77. do the judiciary subject , all the cases handled by accussed / tainted , guilty judges to review , to undo past unjust judgements ?

Q78. how ? if not why ?

Q79. how do the judiciary monitor the net wealth growth of some judges including the wealth in the name of judge's family members ?

Q80. do all the judges file their annual income , wealth statements on sworn affidavits to the higher judiciary ? defaulters how many ?

Q81. how does the judiciary verifies those statements ?

Q82. is such statements made public , on web ?

Q83. when the judgement of a lower court is turned down by the higher court , what action is initiated against lower court judge for making unjust judgement & meating out injustice ?

Q84. when allegations of corruption , misuse of office , etc against judges are made , why the accussed – judges are not subjected to tests like "poly graph , lie detector , brain mapping , etc" , in the interest of justice & truth ?

Q85. judges are not employees of government , so they are ineligible to be the members of "Karnataka state government judicial department house building co-operative society". Then how come , many judges including supreme court judges are admitted as members of this society & allotted prime residential site worth crores of rupees for a few thousands by the said society at said society's – judicial layout , yelahanka , Bangalore ? while the ordinary members like peons , clerks in judicial department are waiting for a site since years , is not the whole thing grossly illegal ?

Q86. in more than 70% of cases before all courts in India , central government or state government or government agency is one of the parties. How many judges or their family members , have received out of turn , favourable allotments of sites , gas agency , petrol pumps , etc by the government ? is not such allotments illegal ? what action ?

Q87. when a person under police custody or judicial custody suffer 3rd degree torture by police , is not the judge of the respective court which is handling that tortured person's case responsible for it ?

Q88. has the higher judiciary legally prosecuted respective judges & the police officers for committing 3rd degree torture , on charges of attempt to murder & murder ? if not why ?

Q89. registrar , Mysore district & sessions court , has called for the candidatures to various vacancies in that court from the public vide notification no : ADMN/A/10825/2003 dated 19/11/2003 & collected application fees from the candidates. Till may 2007 , they have not even conducted the interview ? is it not public cheating by judiciary ? what action to undo the injustices to unemployed ?

Q90. registrar , Bangalore city civil court , has called for the candidatures to various vacancies in that court from the public vide notification no : ADM-I(A)422/03 dated 19/05/2003 & collected application fees from the candidates. Till date , they have not even conducted the interview ? is it not public cheating by the judiciary ? what action to undo injustices to unemployed ?

Q91. when a person doesn't get adequate food , medical care while under police custody or judicial custody , is not the respective judge dealing that person's case responsible for it ? what action ?

Q92. how judiciary is monitoring food & medical care to prisoners ?

Q93. numerous accussed persons are suffering in jail under judicial custody , for periods far exceeding the legally stipulated sentence periods. For example : a pick-pocketer is in jail for one year , the judge finds him guilty of offence & gives him 3 months sentence. What about the excess punishment of 9 months. Is not the judge responsible for the illegal , excess punishment of the convict ? what action against the judge in such cases ?

Q94. numerous innocents suffer in jail for years & finally the judge finds them as innocents & acquits them of the charges. What about the prison sentence , the innocent has already served ? is not the judge responsible for this illegal , unjust punishment to an innocent ? remedy ? what action against the judge ?

Q95. does the privileges of judges cover both their official actions & the actions arising out of misuse of office ?

Q96. does the privileges of judges cover both their official actions as judges & their personal actions as individuals ?

Q97. are the fundamental rights of citizens supreme or the privileges of judges , constitutional functionaries supreme ?

Q98. what is the criteria adopted for promotion of judges ?

Q99. what is the criteria adopted for appointment of advocates from bar , as the judges ?

Q100. what is the criteria adopted for appointment of retired judges , as governors of states , members or as chairman of commissions , etc ?

Q101. how many judges belonging to oppressed classes – scheduled caste , scheduled tribe , other backward classes , minorities & women are their in supreme court , state high courts & subordinate courts ? kindly provide specific figures .

Q102. what are the legal measures enforced by judiciary , to enforce the accountability of judges & to check corruption in judiciary ?

Q103. are not these measures a failure , looking at present state of affairs of judiciary ?

Q104. does the judges arrange for distribution of alchoholic drinks at the official meetings , parties , at the tax payer's expense ?

Q105. does any judges have included their consumption of alchoholic drinks , in their hotel bill & claimed traveling allowance ?

Q106. what action has been taken against – selectors ie Karnataka high court judges & newly selected women judges involved in roost resort scandal in Mysore , Karnataka ?

Q107. when common people / tax payers & even government employees are not getting proper health care from government at government hospitals. Is it right & just to provide premium health care to judges , constitutional functionaries at 5-star private hospitals in India , abroad , all at tax payer's expense ?

Q108. are the judges subjected to periodical health check-ups to ascertain their health , mental faculties & mental balance in the midst of all work pressures , emotional tensions ?

Q109. what is the criteria adopted by judiciary for accepting applications seeking public interest litigations ?

Q110. why numerous appeals for PIL by me , were not considered ?

Q111. what is the criteria adopted by judiciary , for appointing "amicus curie" in a case ?

Q112. why my appeal to honourable supreme court , to make me as an "amicus curie" in late P.M Rajiv Gandhi's assassination case , was not considered by the court ?

Q113. what is the criteria adopted by judiciary , for initiating suo-motto action ?

Q114. numerous cases of injustices are reported in the media daily , with supporting evidences . why not the judiciary take suo-motto action in all such cases ?

Q115. legal aid boards pre-judge the cases in the name of taking legal opinion , before providing legal aid to the needy ? is it not needy person's rights violation ?

Q116. is not the safety of witnesses , parties in cases responsibility of the court , both during hearing of the case & afterwards ?

Q117. is the use of 3rd degree torture by police on prisoners , during the police custody / judicial custody / prison sentence right ? what action ?

Q118. when the corrupt police officer & government prosecution advocate together cover-up evidences , conducts improper investigation intentionally to fail the case – to cover-up rich crooks , high & mighty people , what action judge takes in such cases ?

Q119. how does the judiciary monitor the wealth growth of police , government advoctes , tax officials , officials of licensing authorities , to ensure proper & fair prosecution of cases against rich & mighty ?

Q120. what are the status of appeals made by human rights activist NAGARAJ.M.R. to the honourable supreme court of India ?

Q121. corruption is rampant for selection of officers to quasi-judicial positions like district / taluk magistrates , tax officers , revenue officers , land acquisition officers , etc. how the judiciary monitors over their quasi-judicial actions ?

Q122. subject to conditions , I , NAGARAJ.M.R. , editor , e-voice of human rights watch , do offer my free services to honourable supreme court of India , to apprehend corrupt judges , are you – the honourable court ready to utilize it ?

Q123. what are the status of my appeals , sent to the honourable supreme court of India , through government of india's on-line grievance system ( DPG & DARPG ) :

DPG/M/2006/80008 , DARPG/E/2006/00057, DARPG/E/2006/00225 , DPG/M/2006/80021 , DARPG/E/2006/00253 , DPG/M/2006/80032 , DARPG/E/2006/01149 , DPG/M/2006/80047 , DARPG/E/2006/01164 , DPG/M/2006/80043 , DPG/M/2006/80085 , DARPG/E/2006/06704 , DARPG/E/2006/07017 , DARPG/E/2006/07018 , DPG/M/2006/80159 , DPG/M/2006/80162 , DARPG/E/2006/07864 , DPG/M/2006/80165 , DARPG/E/2006/07877 , DPG/M/2006/80167 , DARPG/E/2006/08028 , DARPG/E/2006/08029 , DARPG/E/2006/08032 , DARPG/E/2006/08043 , DARPG/E/2006/08044 , DPG/M/2006/80174 , DPG/M/2006/80193 , DARPG/E/2007/00044 , DPG/M/2007/80003 , DPG/M/2007/80010 , DARPG/E/2007/00164 , DARPG/E/2007/00165 , DPG/M/2007/80014 , DPG/M/2007/80025 , DPG/M/2007/80049 , DPG/M/2007/80055 , DPG/M/2007/80056 , DPG/M/2007/80078 , DPG/M/2007/80082 , DARPG/E/2007/02618

Q124. the appeals made to the honourable supreme court of India , copies of which are available at following web pages :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw/message/182 ,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw/message/206 ,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw/message/208 ,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw/message/212 ,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw/message/209 ,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw

what are the status of those appeals ?

Q125. in the media , we have seen reports about judges committing crimes – rape , attempt to murder , swindling government money , untouchability practice , the disrespect to national flag , sale of judicial orders , bail , etc. by this way , judges themselves are making contempt of court , constitution of India & citizens of India. How you are protecting the honour of the judiciary , constitution of India & citizens of India ? please answer.

Q126. Is the government giving any facilities / affirmative actions to policemen's family as being given to defense personnel , ex-servicemen & their families , like preferential site allotment , lpg agency , ration depot , reservation in college admission , soft bank loans , etc ?

Q126. if not , why ? after all , the contribution of police to national security is on par with defense forces.

Q127. is not some high police officials addressing their subordinates in singular term , abusing them with vulgar words wrong ?

Q128. is not some police personnel calling public with singular term, abusing public with vulgar words wrong ?

Q129. is it not the duty of prison authorities to protect the health, lives of prison in-mates ?

Q130.what action is taken against police personnel who wrongly charged an innocent person of criminal acts , resulting in his confinement in jail , finally acquitted by court as found to be innocent ?

Q131. is it not right to with hold salary , gratuity , pension to such guilty police personnel & pay it as compensation to victims of police failures & atrocities ?

Q132. does our Indian constitution legally permit a citizen of foreign origin naturalized by marriage to an Indian or naturalized by option , to occupy any constitutional office ? ( new addition )

Q133. during british rule in india & various other british colonies , criminal cases were foisted against our freedom fighters in India & other british colonies. After india's independence what happened to those cases ? did our Indian government close all such cases or did it continue with the prosecution ? ( new addition )

Q134. in how many cases GOI & other state government continued with the prosecution AGAINST OUR FREEDOM FIGHTERS ? why ? ( new addition )

Q135. what about cases against shri.netaji subash Chandra bose ? ( new addition )

Q136. has GOI deported any freedom fighters to Britain or it's colonies , to face prosecution after India gained independence ? HAS GOI RECEIVED ANY REQUEST FROM BRITAIN TO THAT EFFECT ? if yes , why , whom ? ( new addition )

Q137. some of the police officers drink alchoholic drinks while on duty , how do you ensure the rightness of their actions when they are drunk ? ( NEW ADDITION )

Q138. some of the arrested persons are produced by police at odd hours , in the residences of judicial magistrates . if the magistrate has taken alchoholic drinks after office hours , how the rightness of his decision can be ensured ? ( NEW ADDITION )

Failure of RTI Act in India

- In the clutches of corrupt public servants mafia

In the courts of law , every statement to be valid must be supported by evidences. That too, the statements of public servants / government officials & their reports in government records are considered as sacrosanct , the ultimate gospel truth by courts of law.

The corruption has spread it's tentacles far & wide in the public service. The bribe booty is shared by lower to higher officials. If an official is complained against , his higher official conducts a formal investigation & reports in the record that lower official is not guilty.

The vigilance authorities / Karnataka lokayukta has recently raided on police , tax officials & seized illegal wealth amounting to crores of rupees. Take the recent case where in senior IPS officer , superintendent of police chamarajanagar , mr.srikantappa was arrested by Karnataka lokayukta. The victims spoke to media that he used to threaten them with false cases. In this way , how many victims / innocents were arrested & tortured by his arrest warrants ? how many innocents suffered in false cases ? how many rich criminals got scot free , by srikantappa's filing of B reports leading to closure of cases ?

In the past how many suffered by srikantappa's actions ? has the court subjected to review all the previous actions of srikantappa throught his corrupt career ? if not , why ?

The courts of law has taken the official reports , records of mr.srikantappa as gospel truth & indirectly aided rich criminals & harmed innocents. It is the same case with respect to reports of all government officials – police , labour , tax , etc. the rich criminals buy out government officials & make them write favourable report about themselves. Whereas the poor , innocents suffer from adverse reports & injustices. The courts of law takes the government records at it's face value & meat out injustices to the poor , innocents while aiding the rich criminals.

When a commoner requests for information as per RTI Act , the government officials either give incomplete information , false information or decline to give information under one pretext or the other. The officials are damn sure that the truthful information will be detrimental to themselves & will be taken as evidence against themselves in the courts of law. So information , truth is not given. Even information commissions are failing here. Thereby, the public are denied to seek justice in the courts of law , by lack of evidences.

The courts of law before accepting the records of government officials , must subject it to a "test of truth". When a government report is contested against , a fact finding team comprising members of public , complainant , respondent & the court , must check it out at the ground level. Orelse when a complainant says that the report of a government official – police , labour , tax , etc as false that government official must be subjected to lie detector test , narco-analysis, ertc by court of law. The questionnaire ie the questions to be asked during the scientific test are to be prepared with feedback from both complainant & respondent's side. In that way , impartially truth can be found out. After all , the objective of courts of law is "Quest for Truth", not just giving out judgements based on reports of corrupt officials.

Nowadays , we are even seeing reports of corruption among the judiciary itself. If a complaint against a judge is made out that a level ground is not provided to put up one's case in the court or cross examination of one party is not allowed or lie detector test / narco analysis of one party is not allowed ( in turn taking the lies of that party as truth ), the judge making a varied interpretation of law, the judge not safe guarding the health & life of the complainant in the custody of police leading to 3rd degree torture of complainant by police , etc, in all such cases the supreme court of India must change the presiding judge of such cases , the cases must be thoroughly reviewed & the guilty judge must be subjected to narco-analysis , lie detector test , etc & legally prosecuted. In this back drop , accountability of police & judges to the public ie citizens of India – kings of democracy , is a must. After all , the kings of democracy / citizens of India / taxpayers are the paymasters of all public servants.

We at e – voice of human rights of watch have utmost respect for the judiciary & all government institutions. It is the corrupt few in those institutions who are themselves bringing disgrace to the august institutions they occupy , by their corrupt deeds. The saving grace is that still honest few are left in public service & it is an appeal to them , to legally prosecute their corrupt colleagues.

In India , the private enterprises are the wealth creators of our economy. However , some private enterprises are violating labour laws , tax laws , human rights & fundamental rights of people. In turn harming the public , looting the tax dues. This is creating black money causing various social evils in the society. These huge private enterprises take loans from public sector banks ie take public's money as loans , collect money from public in the form of shares , debentures , sell their product to the public. Still , they are not covered by RTI Act, they don't give truthful information to the public nor allow public inspection of their sites , why ? they buy out concerned government officials & gets them to write favourable report about themselves. There are wide differences between the ground reality & these government reports. If the aggrieved person , victim of injustices meated out by these private enterprises , tries to legally seek justice, these criminal private enterprises buy out police , concerned officials & fixes up the victim in false cases. The police in total disregard to law violates the human rights & fundamental rights of the victim in custody , subjects the victim to 3rd degree torture in custody. The presiding judge of the case doesn't safe guard the rights , health , life of victims in custody. The judge doesn't check out the truthfulness of government reports & passes on judgement making varied interpretation of just remember the case of "local citizens vs coca cola company" in plachimada , kerala.

Is it not right & just in such cases , to subject the presiding judge , police , concerned government officialds & most importantly key officials of that criminal private enterprise to lie detector , narco- analysis tests , to know the truth ? is it not right to conduct the inspection of alleged site , review of all company's records , by a team comprising of members from public , court , complainant & respondent ?

Some of these criminal enterprises threaten to finish off the poor victims . as these company's have money power they can buy out rowdies , police & capable of doing anything. In such cases , if anything untoward happens to the victim or his family , are not the officials of such criminal enterprise liable to pay compensation to the victims's family or survivors ?

In India , do we truly have democracy & freedom ? is this corrupt India – what our freedom fighters dreamt of & fought for ?

FOREIGN TOURS OF INDIAN JUDGES AT TAXPAYER’S EXPENSE

New Delhi: CNN-IBN's exclusive report on some judges using official trips to holiday, has sparked off the debate - should judges be above the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act?

RTI activists say there is every reason why the RTI Act should apply to the higher judiciary as well.

Questions are now being asked in South Block, too, following the expose on Supreme Court judges.

Records obtained under the RTI shows judges have been converting work trips to holidays, taking long detours and are accompanied by their wives while traveling abroad.

At present there are no travel guidelines for the judiciary and the Bar Council of India is suggesting a course correction.

"I think the judges must pay or should pay the amount to the government," Bar Council of India Chairman SNP Sinha said in Patna on Wednesday.

Under the RTI, CNN-IBN found that for Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan's 11-day trip to Pretoria, South Africa in August 2007 the route was - Delhi, Dubai, Johannesburg, Nelspruit, Capetown, Johannesburg, Victoria Falls, where the judge finally didn't go and back to Delhi via Dubai.

Former chief justice YK Sabharwal attended three conferences in 2005 to Edinburgh, Washington and Paris. While the conferences lasted 11 days, Sabharwal was out for 38 days with 21 days converted into a private visit.

The travel plan included a detour from Washington to Baltimore, Orlando and Atlanta, before rejoining the conference route in Paris.

The First Class air fare for Sabharwal's entire trip was paid by the government.

Activists are now renewing the debate on the RTI act applying to judges as well

RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal said: "It only underscores why the RTI needs to be applied to judges and judiciary."

Just like Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion, RTI activists are demanding that SC judges too should be seen to be accountable.

An appeal to honourable chief minister of uttar Pradesh india

Dear madam / sir ,

INDIA: The work of PVCHR, a human rights organisation, must be protected

Name of victim: The People's Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR), SA 4/2A, Daulatpur, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, its staff and the Dalit families (about 2000 in number, primarily in three separate hamlets Belwa, Pindra and Raup) Date of incident: 25 April, 2008 and continuously thereon

I am writing to express my concern regarding the case of threats received by the People's Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR) from the criminals associated with the upper caste Hindus and feudal lords in Uttar Pradesh. I am informed that Dr. Lenin, the Convener of the PVCHR, has been receiving abusive and life threatening calls on his mobile number +919935599333 since 25 April 2008 asking him to stop all activities of the PVCHR addressing issues concerning the Dalits in Uttar Pradesh.

I am informed that of the calls received by Dr. Lenin, the last one was from a notorious mafia man operating in Uttar Pradesh who ordered PVCHR to immediately stop all its activities involving Dalits in Raup, Pinda and Belwa Dalit hamlets or else the staff of the PVCHR along with the Dalit families residing in these hamlets would be hurt and their houses burned.

I am informed that the calls are a reflection of the PVCHR's success in mobilising and empowering the Dalits in the state. I am also informed that the Uttar Pradesh state administration unfortunately is finding the PVCHR's work as a slur or trouble to the state's public image.

It is reported that Dr. Lenin has received 18 calls from the following numbers +919918086996, +919415158550, +919794207227, +919454592038, +919792166784, +919792317547, +919453982577, +919956198171, +919838709973, +919889028806, +919792625583, +919795067828, +919838709937, +919792308119, +919793181915 and +919335985425, +919956816351 and +919919784317 on 25/4/08, 30/4/08, 11/5/2008, 15/5/08, 16/5/08, 17/5/08 and 18/5/08 respectively.

All these numbers are registered in India. On 26 April 2008 after the first call Dr. Lenin has registered a complaint, send through registered post, to the Director General of Police, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh informing the officer about the call that he received and urging the officer to take necessary action upon the complaint.

I am informed that the telephone number to which these calls are made (+91993559933) is being monitored by the state government agencies. However, the uninterrupted manner in which the calls continued indicates that the state police have not taken the complaint lodged by Dr. Lenin seriously.

I am further informed that Dr. Lenin has communicated to the AHRC that the latest of the calls that he received from the number +919919784317 is one of the numbers used by a dangerous mafia person operating in Uttar Pradesh. The very fact and knowledge that such persons are involved in this matter is good enough for anybody in the state to stop all their activities.

It appears that the state administration through its passive stance of failing to provide adequate protection to the PVCHR and its activists is in fact expecting the upper caste Hindus and feudal landlords in the state and their criminal henchmen to silence the PVCHR. Dr. Lenin believes that the calls though made to his personal mobile telephone are in fact a method of delivering a message to everyone associated with the PVCHR, cautioning them to stop working in Uttar Pradesh. This must not be allowed.

It is imperative in these circumstances that 24 hours police protection to be provided to the Dalit hamlets in Pindra, Belwa and Raup in and around Varanasi so as to ensure that the Dalit families in these villages are safe from the criminals who have threatened the PVCHR from working in these villages. It is also necessary for the state police to immediately discuss these issues with the PVCHR and its staff, to ensure that none of the staff as well as the people for whom the PVCHR work is hurt by the criminals.

The state administration must immediately take these steps as otherwise irreparable damages will be caused to not only a well functioning human rights group in Uttar Pradesh and its staff, but also to the Dalits residing in Dalit hamlets in and around Varanasi.

I am also informed that the AHRC is also writing to the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders calling for an immediate intervention in this case.

Your’s sincerely,

NAGARAJ.M.R.

AN APPEAL TO HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER OF GUJARATH INDIA

Dear madam / Sir ,

INDIA: Please strictly punish the public servants practicing "untouchability" in Gujarat

Name of victim: Mr. Natu Dhya (Dalit community, Scheduled Caste), age 48, a resident of Marida village, Nadiayad Block, Kheda district, Gujarat Names of alleged perpetrators: 1. Mr. Vinu Shana Chauhan, the village head of same village as the victim, a resident of Thakor community (Other Backward Class; OBC) 2. Mr. Mangal Chauhan, Village revenue officer for same village as the victim, a resident of Thakor community (OBC) 3. Mr. Mahesh Ranchhod Chauhan, a resident of Thakor community (OBC) in Marida village 4. Mr. Nanji Dipa Chauhan, a resident of Thakor community (OBC) in Marida village (Persons 3 and 4 attended on the village council meeting in the place of their wives who are the actual village council members) 5. Mr. A. S. Sayyed, Police Sub Inspector, Nadiayad Police Station, Kheda district, Gujarat 6. Mr. Sethi Punjabi, Judge, Fast Rack Court, Nadiayad, Kheda district, Gujarat Date of incident: since January 2007 Place of incident: Marida village, under the jurisdiction of Nadiad Police Station, Nadiad Block, Kheda district, Gujarat

I am writing to express my concern regarding the caste based discrimination against a village panchayat (village council) member who belongs to Dalit community.

I am surprised to learn that the untouchability actually practices in public field by public servants in India.

I am informed that Mr. Natu Dahya was refused to sit on a chair and was separately served with snack during village panchayat meeting since he was elected as a member of village panchayat in January 2007.

The village head Mr. Vinu Shana Chauhan, the Village revenue officer Mr. Mangal Chauhan, and Mr. Mahesh Ranchhod Chauhan and Mr. Nanji Dipa Chauhan who attended on the village panchayat meeting in the place of their wives who are the actual village panchayat members, took the chair away from Natu during the panchayat meeting. They also made Natu wash the chair saying "when you sit on a chair, the chair becomes "untouchable".

After the first panchayat meeting, Natu tried to file a complaint against these four persons including two public servants, but the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Nadiad Police Station refused to register his complaint. It was alleged that PSI was pressured by local Member of Legislative Assembly Mr. Natvarsinh Chauhan who has ties with the dominant caste community in Marida village.

Half a year later, on 7 July 2007, the complaint was lodged with Nadiad Police Station, which resulted from Natu's long struggle. The police in the FIR against the accused failed to mention the Section 3(2)(vii) ("being a public servant, commits any offence under this section shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to the punishment provided for that offence."), providing space to reduce the gravity of the accused's crimes.

Meanwhile, Mahesh Ranchhod and Nanji Dipa repeatedly pressured Natu to withdraw the complaint threatening to break Natu's leg and kill him.

I am further surprised to learn that the caste based discrimination against the victim continued even in court. On 11 January 2008, Natu's case was tried in the Fast Track Court of Nadiad. While the victim was giving his statement under oath in court, the Sessions Judge Sethi Punjabi advised the victim not to take the entire situation the victim faced during the village panchayat meeting as discrimination. The judge added that the entire situation is normal in the country.

It is reported that the judge said the following to the victim during the trial:

"I am a Punjabi by caste. Even if someone called me 'Shikh' instead of 'Punjabi', I would not consider it as an abuse."

"It is normal… normal in the country. I also feel so. Why did you file a complaint? In my chamber, I used to have two sets of paper plates to offer snacks. I offer different plates to different people. In doing so, nothing is illegal and there are not any forms of discrimination. It is a personal choice. You should not take it as discrimination."

"When I was in Junagadh district posted at Junagadh Court, I took a cigarette only when it was offered by a Patel (upper caste). I did not take cigarettes offered by other low castes."

The judge's biased attitude prevented the victim from giving an appropriate statement in court. On 15 January 2008, the victim submitted a complaint against Sessions Judge Sethi Punjabi to District Judge R.M. Parmar; the Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court; the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission of India. The victim, however, has not received any response from the authorities about his complaint against the Sessions judge.

I am informed that the accused village head was reinstated by State government after his appeal regarding suspension on him and the accused Village revenue officer is suspended at present. The case is still pending in court.

I am aware that the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and its General Recommendation recommend immediate and effective measures, particularly in the fields of teaching, education, culture and information, in order to combat prejudices (Article 7) and further to organise training programmes for public officials and law-enforcement agencies, with a view towards preventing injustices based on prejudice against descent-based communities.

I therefore, urge you to make an intervention to punish the four accused strictly in accordance with the law of India. For the legitimate punishment for the accused, I urge you to ensure the impartial and objective trial by the judge who is not caste-biased.

I also urge you to intervene to take immediate investigation on the process of filing complaint in order to punish the relevant persons.

Most of all, I urge you to make an alarm regarding "untouchability" and caste based discrimination in public field by public servants in India. Without elimination of discrimination in public sphere by public servant, Indian society will never bring equality and justice before law as the public servant is one of the opinion leaders in a society.

Your’s sincerely,

NAGARAJ.M.R.

India: Concern over the arrest of filmmaker and human rights defender T.G. Ajay in Chhattisgarh

Amnesty International is concerned over the apparently arbitrary arrest of T. G. Ajay, a film-maker and human rights defender who has been documenting problems faced by adivasi (indigenous) communities in protecting their rights, in the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh.

Ajay is the second human rights defender to be arrested under the Chhattisgarh State Public Security Act, 2005 (CSPSA), in the state. He is a member of the state executive committee of the People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL).

Ajay is being held in Raipur jail, where Dr. Binayak Sen, general secretary of the state PUCL and a physician working on access to health for adivasis, today completed one year of imprisonment. Dr. Sen now faces a trial on charges of aiding a banned Maoist organisation, the Communist Party of India (Maoist). 1

On 5 May, Ajay was arrested at his residence at Superla in Bhilai and charged at the Bilaspur High Court under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (sedition) and Sections 3, 4 and 8 of the CSPSA.

Amnesty International has reason to believe that the charges against Ajay are politically motivated. Ajay has been actively engaged, since 2004, in documentation of human rights violations as part of the PUCL's ongoing efforts to protect the rights of adivasi communitiesin the face of escalating violence in the Bastar-Dantewada area of Chattisgarh between banned Maoists and Salwa Judum, an armed anti-Maoist militia campaign widely regarded as supported by the state government. The PUCL has been instrumental in bringing to light unlawful killings of adivasis, sexual assault of adivasi women, abductions and forced displacement.

On 22 January 2008, following the arrest of a woman Maoist in Bastar-Dantewada, the Chhattisgarh police searched Ajay's residence and seized his computer hard disk. On 26 March, Ajay filed a petition in the High Court seeking its return.

Amnesty International calls on the Union and Chattisgarh governments

· to ensure Ajay's prompt and fair trial in accordance with international standards of fairness.

· to take concrete measures to ensure that human rights defenders in Chhattisgarh are not subject to harassment or intimidation and enjoy all the rights enshrined in international law.

Background

Since 2005, Chhattisgarh, especially the Bastar-Dantewada forest area, has experienced an escalation of violence between the Maoists and the Salwa Judum. Civilians have been routinely targeted on both sides, resulting in at least 300 deaths. Also, 30,000 adivasis displaced from their homes continue to live in special camps where they face increased risk of violence. The Chhattisgarh state government claimed that it enacted the CSPSA to take action against the Maoists.

The CSPSA allows for arbitrary detention of persons suspected of belonging to an unlawful organization or participating in its activities or giving protection to any member of such an organization.

Human rights organizations in India have demanded the repeal of CSPSA as it contains several provisions which violate international human rights law:

· Vague and sweeping definitions of "unlawful activities" for which organizations may be rendered "unlawful", such as "uttering words... which propounds the disobedience" of "established law and its institutions". Such definitions enable the government to arrest and detain individuals, as well as seek their punishment, on grounds that may not be clear to them, in violation of the principle of certainty in criminal law, reflected in Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which India is a state party;

· Threats, as a result, to other key human rights including freedom of expression and association, provided in Articles 19 and 22 of the ICCPR, respectively;

· All offences under the CSPSA are "cognizant and non-bailable"; hence all those charged under the Act are detained, often for months, before being tried. In Dr. Sen's case, he was detained on 14 May 2007, his trial commenced on 30 April 2008 and is currently adjourned till 23 June 2008.

Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJ.M.R. @ #LIG-2 / 761,HUDCO FIRST STAGE ,OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSORE ………. 570017 INDIA……………………cell :09341820313 home page : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw, http://groups.google.co.in/group/hrwepaper/, http://evoiceofhumanrightswatch.wordpress.com/ , http://indiapolicelaw.blogspot.com/ ,http://hrwpaper.blogspot.com/ , http://naghrw.tripod.com/evoice/ http://e-voiceofhumanrightswatch.blogspot.com, contact : naghrw@yahoo.com , nagarajhrw@hotmail.com A member of AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL INDIA

8 comments:

Yogesh saxena said...

Our Last English Chief Justice Orby H. Mootham- ‘When Chief justice Mootham apologized to a litigant’. WHERE ARE THOSE JUDGES?
‘This reminiscences is relate back to the period of about last 50 years from the time of last English Chief Justice Orby H. Mootham, Those were the days’-. Compare it now; Right from the period of the English judges to the present scenario. It has been said that those judges were mature, modest and commanded the respect by their very entry in the courtroom. ‘When Chief justice Mootham apologized to a litigant’. Chief justice Mootham entered the court smilingly, but became tense and pointed out to the Bench Secretary for the impropriety of behavior of a litigant, a gentle man who was sitting in the fifth or sixth row wearing a head-gear. The gentleman has removed his cap. The moment the functioning started, the chief justice regained his usual pleased posture, but the irritation was again visible, when he saw the gentleman recapped his head. However, when the orderly went towards the gentleman he voluntarily removed his cap. This was perhaps by reflexes that he wore the cap once again. The chief justice stopped functioning and asked the court officer to act upon and thereafter the gentleman was asked to leave the courtroom. It was per by chance that one contemporary Advocate went to chief justice’s chamber to make a mention. Justice Gyanendra Kumar was present in Hon’ble Chief justice chamber. The chief justice in a most inimitable style asked, whether he had seen the gentleman, who despite been told not to wear the cap, defied the advice of the bench secretary. The Chief Justice has also said that the gentleman looked a dissent person, but he wandered why he repeatedly wore his cap soon after removing it. Was it by the defiance to authority of the Court?
Justice Gyanendra Kumar, a very pleasant conversationalist, intervened. He said "Chief Justice", your lordship in the English society, people take off a hat to show courtesy, but we in this country wear a cap to show our respect. Thus the gentleman was only trying to repeat his gesture of respect. The chief justice perhaps never knew it otherwise this was not causing irritation to him. The tall person, the chief justice broke into laugher and asked the bench secretary to trace and bring the gentleman in his chamber. Perhaps the gentleman was still out side the chief justice chamber. As soon as he entered, the chief justice expressed regret to him and pleaded his ignorance that the cap is worn to show respect. Soon, the gentleman after being happy from the reprimand made by the chief justice was again called to request him to be in the courtroom soon after the lunch. Justice Gyanendra Kumar was curious as to why the chief justice was insisting to have the gentleman in court. On being inquired the chief justice Mootham observed:- " He has been reprimanded in court by me and therefore he deserves an apology from chief justice in the court itself. Later the chief justice apologized in court itself. This has been never seen or heard by any judge about such gesture even to a lawyer when there is no good ground for reprimand." HOW CAN SUCH A JUDGE, THOUGH HE RETIRED IN 1961 CAN GO OUT OF MEMORY OF THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN HIM WORKING IN COURT AND OUTSIDE”? There gesture of kindness to the lawyers and courteous dialogues used to blush out of their modesty even if their faces looked red and they were scared in the moment. They entered the courtroom right at 10.00 A.M. never before or a second afterwards. The chief justice was so cordial, warm and affectionate that this was the etiquette of high constitutional functionaries. The unusual dissent conduct with a strange warmth decency of Chief Justice Mootham was continued to remember even after his death to heavenly abode from this world.
"Every Act and every inquiry and similarly every action and pursuit, given by him was thought to aim at some good, and for this reason, the good has rightly been declared, to be that, at which all things aim. But a certain difference is found among ends". For him "For best was he who knows all things himself good, he that hearkens when men counsel right. But he who neither knows, nor lays to heart another wisdom, is a useless night".
"Life is a shylock; always it demands. The fullest usurer’s interests for each pleasure Gifts are not freely scattered by its hand. We made returns for every borrowed treasurer. Each talent, each achievement and every gain me necessitated some penalty to pay. All you bestow on causes or on men of love or hate of malice or devotion somehow and sometime shall be returned again. There is no waste toil, no lost emotion. The motto of the world is to give and take. It gives you favour out of sheer goodwill but unless a speedy recompense you make you will find yourself presented with its bill". "Competition is a struggle for existence because there is always be survival of the fittest".
Justice Raghubar Dayal, an Advocate has written this that he open his submissions by using a phrase from the privy council’s judgement without referring to it. He said that the learned District Judge has carved out an new case for which no place was found in pleading! Justice Raghubar Dayal did not open the file and remarked - if counsel have learned to use this kind of language so early in life, he would land himself in disaster. Advocate immediately apologized. He said that he has escaped his lordship wrath and will have a chance before another judge, but justice Dayal said to him that he might present in the courtroom at 10.00 A.M. as this case will be taken as part heard case. Justice Dayal was tensed and his earlier day’s annoyance was apparent. Advocate said that he was relying Privy Council judgement where the judicial committee has used the same language. He said that he was conscious that he did not know English to well, yet he use such word, which were used by Privy Council. Justice Dayal admitted the appeal, but refuse to exercise discretion for staying the decree for demolition. He has written that his indiscreet use of language cause lost to his client. The house of the client was demolished but Advocate has written that he has repented this incident through out his life as to find out where he was wrong. Justice Raghubar Dayal, who retired in 1960 as the judge of Supreme Court, still had the great respect from Advocate, as he never committed such mistake through out his life.
With regard to Justice and injustice to an individual’s opinion assessments, we must consider the kind of action. It’s means and the justness for considering its effect and solution. Thus the justice is always represent in corresponding sense. An advocate’s world is to convey the idea generated through such experiences with the same precision Ideologically some time antagonistic to his own opinion, but from its very inception of the correct analysis of his perceptions with the desire, aptitude and knowledge in adequate representations. This is a heterogeneous conglomeration of disparate and desperate interests designed mainly hedge against common enemy on both the constituents. .The cultivation of moral foundations is called our cultural heritage.
Yogesh Kumar Saxena
Advocate, High Court
H.I.G.203, Preetam Nagar, Sulem sarai, Allahabad-211001
yogrekha@gmail.com, yogrekha@rediffmail.com, yogrekha@yahoo.co.in
Founder President- World Citizenship Group Foundation, Swami vevekanand world ethical foundation,
Executive Member- World Parliament Experiment conference 2008 at Bonn (Germany),
Vice President- Geeta Asharam International Cheritable Trust, Rishikesh, Pauri Garhwal
Ex Vice President- Advocate’s Association, High Court, Allahabad
Special Counsel/ officer, Ganga Pollution Matter, High Court, Allahabad

Anonymous said...

Complaint in respect of functioning of Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan in respect of his functioning as Allahabad High Court Judge, Now elevated as Chief Justice of another High Court
To,
My lord The Chief Justice Of India,
Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India,
New Delhi
Reference:- The Division Bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta has decided the special appeal No. 1369 of 1999 wholly without Jurisdiction , as the jurisdiction to hear and decide the same on 26.10.2006, the listed special appeals for the year of 1999 for hearing including the bunch cases was conferred by the authority of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the division bench presided over by their lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath in Court no.2 Gupta under the prerogative and the authority of the Hon’ble chief justice in consonance with the requirement of Chapter V Rule 1 of Allahabad High Court Rules. It is submitted that the Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was not even listed in court no. 34, but since the record of the said special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was summoned in furtherance of recall application filed in dismissed special appeal no 840 of 1999 by the bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta. There is a complete procedure prescribed for having the jurisdiction being conferred by Hon’ble the Chief Justice for deciding the special appeal and without any nomination being conferred to the particular Hon’ble Division Bench by the specific order of Hon’ble Chief Justice, the jurisdiction conferred and allotted to them by the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice or in accordance with his lordship’s direction under Rule 1 of Chapter V of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 The judgement dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal 1369 of 1999 is contradiction to the order passed in special appeal No. 860 of 1999(Dismissed on 2.4.2004), special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004). All the Appellants filed their appeals against the same judgement, and the appellants of special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004)were also impleaded as respondents in present special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 and thus the judgement passed ex-parte in special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 on 26.10.2006 is passed against the principle of natural justice causing prejudice and barred by constructive Res- judicata
Subject:- Direction may be issued for deciding the matter pertaining to recall of order and judgement dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal 1369 of 1999 passed wholly without Jurisdiction by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta as the record of the said special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was summoned in furtherance of recall application filed in dismissed special appeal no 840 of 1999 by the bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta, when the Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was not even listed in court no. 34 as the listed special appeals for the year of 1999 for hearing including the bunch cases was conferred by the authority of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the division bench presided over by their lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath in Court no.2
The submission of the petitioner Prem Shankar Sharma, aged about 64 years, son of Sri Ram Bhajan Lal Sharma, , Lecture in English (Retired) in Ambika Prasad Intermediate College, Near Police station, Moradabad resident of Mohalla- Shuklan (Near Chaurasi Ghante of Mandir) Moradabad, District Moradabad in this regards are as under.
That the Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in English in the institution on 9.8.1968. He was confirmed after completion of probation period on 9.8.1969. He was the member of Rashtriya Swamsevak Sangh and as such he was detained under the maintenance of Internal Security Act from 14.8.1975 to 30.3.1977. He was again detained under National Security Act (N.S.A.) on 1.11.1980 upto 10.12.1980 and despite the aforesaid preventive detention; the respondents paid the petitioner salary. That third time when on 11.7.1987 the petitioner went to Govt. Inter College, Moradabad to take training under the new education policy, he was detained under the provisions of Internal Security Act. That the petitioner was taking the training alongwith the principal of institution and one Khajan Giri and as such he told the Principal to inform the Manager about his arrest, but still the Manager wrote a letter on 24.7.1987 stating therein that the petitioner did not attend the college and was not present in the institution on 21.7.1987.That on 27.7.1987 the petitioner wrote a letter that he was arrested by the Police at the gate of Govt. Inter College, and had been lodged in district Jail Moradabad from 11.7.1987. This letter was sent through district Jail Moradabad and the same was communicated to the Manager, who sent the aforesaid letter to the D.I.O.S. Moradabad on 31.7.1987.That the members of Bhartiya Janta Party shown its resentment against the illegal detention of the petitioner and the news to this effect was published in Amar Ujala on 16.7.1987. Thus the management knew the fact regarding the absence of petitioner on account of unavoidable circumstances of his illegal detention, but still the allegation of absent from leave was leveled against the petitioner.That Sri Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Senior Lawyer of District Court Moradabad and the Vice-President of Committee of Management of Institution passed resolution on 15.7.1987 seeking bye cot of all the courts Moradabad on account of illegal arrest of petitioner. That still the resolution was passed on 4.9.1987 to give a notice to the petitioner as to why he remained absent from 11.7.1987 and sought for his explanation. The notice was sent to the petitioner in jail on 10.9.1987 stating therein that why his services should not be terminated. The explanation of petitioner regarding his absence being beyond his control as had been detained under the National Security Act and the earlier information sent to the manager on 27.7.1987 was not taken into consideration by the management. That the charges were in respect of previous detention for which the petitioner was paid his salary was also leveled as the first charge, while the second charge was falsely concocted, as the petitioner did not give any information regarding his detention, nor gave any leave application. The petitioner explained every thing in his letter dated 21.1.1988 and said that he is district Jail due to illegal detention and as such the absence of petitioner was beyond his control. The sole reason for the detention of the petitioner was that he was the District Secretary of Bhartiya Janta Party. That the petitioner was suspended, but the suspension order was revoked after 60 days. It is submitted that after being released from the preventive detention on 11.7.1988, the petitioner was directed to put his signature in the office of D.I.O.S. Moradabad, as the Management did not allow the petitioner to resume his duties. The petitioner was paid salary by the D.I.O.S. even after the preventive detention. That despite all such facts the matter was referred to the U.P. Secondary Education service Commission, Allahabad to whom petitioner sent a letter on 24.2.1989 seeking setting aside the proposal of the Committee of Management, but the one member committee who was not even authorized to conduct the enquiry recommended for termination of services of the petitioner and thereafter the U.P. Secondary Education service Commission, Allahabad on 28.7.1989 granted approval to the proposal for termination.That one member committee of O.N. Shah who remained Assistant Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution on 17.5.1987 and was the Principal of S.S.K. Inter College could not be appointed as one member committee and his recommendation to dispense with the services to the commission were void-ab- initio and as such the subsequent order of termination dated 1.9.1989 on the baseless, misconceived and frivolous charges was liable to be set aside, which was done by the reasoned judgement passed on 11.8.1999 in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989.
The said judgement was challenged by the Committee of Management in Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999.That after the dismissal of special appeal no. 840 of 1999 when the recall application was filed without serving the copy of said application to the counsel for the petitioner, then the division bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta after going through the contents of the counter affidavit filed in the said application seeking recall of the order dated 23.11.2003, summoned the file of the special appeal no. 860 of 1999 (filed by Sudhir Kumar dismissed on 2.4.2004), the Special Appeal no. 907 of 1999 (filed by U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission dismissed on 14.9.1999) and also the record of pending present Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999, simply to ascertain the matter in consonance with the requirement as to whether the recall application filed on behalf of the committee of management may be allowed or the same may be dismissed in absence of any rejoinder affidavit to the allegations made in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. That the special appeal no. 840 of 1999 was dismissed as not pressed on 23.11.2003 by the Division Bench presided over by the Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, JJ. The aforesaid appeal was filed by the Committee of Management of Ambika Prasad Intermediate College, Moradabad challenging the judgement and order dated 11.8.1999 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai J in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989 (Prem Shankar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others). Thereafter an application for recall of the order dated 23.11.2003 purported to have been passed in the Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999 without annexing the judgement dated 23.11.2004 dismissing the aforesaid Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999 was filed without serving the copy of said application to the counsel for the Petitioner. That the Petitioner filed the counter affidavit in reply to the affidavit filed in support of the recall application. It was stated that the judgment can not be recalled by moving an application at belated stage and the copy of the same is not given to the counsel appearing on behalf of answering respondent. That it was further stated that the said application is filed without having any explanation regarding non-filing of application seeking condonation of delay. Thus the same is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. That it was further stated that the Special Appeal no. 860 of 1999 filed by Sudhir Kumar against the same judgement dated 11.8.1999 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai, J has been dismissed on 2.4.2004. This person Sudhir Kumar was inducted as the Lecturer in English after dispensing the services of the petitioner. However, when the writ petition no. 24443 of 1989 was allowed on 11.8.1999, then the services of Sudhir Kumar were terminated and as such he filed the Special appeal no. 860 of 1999, which was also dismissed and thereby reaffirming the judgement dated 11.8.1999. That the special appeal no. 907 of 1999 was filed against the same judgement passed on 11.8.1999 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989, but that special appeal was also dismissed as misconceived and also being filed without any locus-standi by the judgment dated 14.9.1999.
That on 26.10.2006 the jurisdiction to here the listed special appeals for the year of 1999 for hearing including the bunch cases was conferred by the authority of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the division bench presided over by their lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath in Court no.2. It is submitted that the present Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was not even listed in court no. 34, but since the record of the said special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was summoned in furtherance of recall application filed in special appeal no 840 of 1999 by the bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta and as such only to ascertain the facts stated in the counter affidavit and in the affidavit filed in support of the alleged recall application, the records of three aforesaid special appeal was summoned, wherein the name of the counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/respondent namely Sri Ashok Khare, Advocate was the only name mentioned in special appeal no. 1369 of 1999. That the Standing counsel was not prepared to argue the matter pertaining to the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 filed by the State of U.P. in absence of the same not being listed in court no. 34 and in absence of Sri Ashok Khare, senior Counsel appearing in the said appeal on behalf of petitioner. This fact has been brought to the notice of the deponent by his counsel appearing in Special appeal no. 840 of 1999, which was dismissed on 23.11.2004.That the division bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan enquired about the matter from Sri V.K. Singh Advocate appearing in special appeal no. 840 of 1999 and also enquired from the counsel for the respondent only about the controversy involved in all such special appeal out of which three special appeals were already dismissed while the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 filed by State of U.P. was surviving. The counsel informed that the question as to whether a teacher while detained under Preventive detention could have been said to be voluntarily absenting from duty on the basis of which without affording any opportunity, the services of such teacher may be dispensed with in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and the case law relied upon in the judgement dated 11.8.1999 (state of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rama Shankar Raghuvanshui A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 374), (M.H. Devendrappa Vs. Karnataka State in Small Industries Development Corporation. A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1064), Sarnam Singh Vs. Smt Pushpa Devi 1986 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. page 348 and Anukool Chandra Pradhan Vs. Union of India A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2814, State of Orissa Vs. Dr. Miss. Bina Pani Dei and others 1967 (2) S.C.R. 625 (Para-9), Mohinder Singh Gill VS. Chief Election Commissioner 1978 (2) S.C.R. 272 (Para-9), State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 S.C.R. 284 followed in D.K. Yadav Vs. M/S J.M.A. Industry J.T. 1993 (3) S.C. 617 as well as the provisions of Regulation 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44 and 45 read with section 16 (G) (3-A) as provided under Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and rule 6 of rules framed under Act no. 5 of 1982 referred in the judgement dated 11.8.1999 were indicated as the controversy involved regarding unavoidable incident relating to the arrest under preventive detention, which is not pertaining to any criminal activity, but simply on account of participating into association under Article 19 (1) ( C) of the Constitution of India. The matter was not argued by the standing counsel, but in the judgment allegedly delivered on 26.10.2006, it has been falsely mentioned that the case was argued by the learned standing counsel appearing for the State Appellant. The counsel for the petitioner in Special Appeal No. 840/1999 Sri Yogesh Kumar saxena, Advocate informed the deponent that it was only Sri V.K. Singh, Advocate appearing in Special appeal No. 840/1999, who placed the controversy involved in his special appeal no. 840 of 1999.That on 1.11.2006, when the matter was shown to be listed in the cause list of court no. 34 regarding the delivery of the order in the recall application filed in special appeal no. 840 of 1999 then counsel for the petitioner was informed that since the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 filed by the State of U.P. was also liable to be dismissed and as such it has been shown to be decided on 26.10.2006 in the cause list of 1.11.2006. That upto this time i.e. 1.11.2006 there was no existence of the order alleged to have been passed on 26.10.2006 in the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 on the basis of which the recall application was decided as no order is required to be passed on this application, but subsequently thereafter when the message of dismissal of special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was communicated to the petitioner, then counsel for the petitioner came to know about the existence of the order. He applied for the order in anticipation that the special appeal bearing special appeal no. 1369 of 1999, which was earlier filed as (defective) appeal no. 630 of 1999 might have been dismissed as there may not be the inconsistent order in the said appeal after dismissal of three special appeals filed against the same judgement, in which the committee of Management and Secretary U.P. Secondary Commission remained at the array of respondents and were duly represented by their respective counsels. That, although the order passed on 23.11.2004 dismissing the Special Appeal No. 840 of 1999 has been affirmed by the order dated 26. 10. 2006 passed on Recall application, as it has been noted that in view of the judgement passed in special appeal No. 1369 of 1999, no order is required to pass on the recall application. Thus it appears that even by this order passed on 26.10.2006, the Hon’ble Division Bench dealing with the recall application in special Appeal No. 840 of 1999 did not find any merit in the said appeal. The Hon’ble division bench Presided by Hon’ble Dr. justice B. S. Chauhan adopted a unique manner in deciding the present Special Appeal wholly without jurisdiction purported to have decided on the same day, to which no person could have decided in the open court on 26.10.2006, otherwise their was no occasion for listing of the case on 1.11.2006 in the cause list for appropriate order on the recall application filed in Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999. Thus the judgement passed in special Appeal is bad in the light of the legal fiction that what not be done directly in absence of jurisdiction, the can not be done indirectly by the Hon’ble Division Bench presided over by Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta in passing the judgement on 26.10.2006 passed in special Appeal No. 1369 of 1999.
That in this manner since the judgement passed in the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 by the bench presided over the Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta is the judgment passed in absentia of the counsel of the petitioner/respondent appearing in the said appeal namely Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Khare, Advocate for the petitioner in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989, which was the only name printed as the sole name of the opposite party; and the same special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was neither listed for hearing under the caption of the jurisdiction, nor there had been any serial number mentioned against the said listing of the special appeal, regarding which, the communication could have been made to the senior counsel Sri Ashok Khare, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner by the other counsel appearing in special appeal no. 840 of 1999 at the time of its dismissal on 23.11.2004. There was no jurisdiction conferred with the division bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta to decide the special appeal of the year of 1999 as the jurisdiction of the same was conferred before court no. 2 under the prerogative and the authority of the Hon’ble chief justice in consonance with the requirement of Chapter
V Rule 1 of Allahabad High Court Rules. The judgement dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal 1369 of 1999 is contradiction to the order passed in special appeal No. 860 of 1999(Dismissed on 2.4.2004), special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004). All the Appellants filed their appeals against the same judgement, and the appellants of special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004)were also impleaded as respondents in present special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 and thus the judgement passed ex-parte in special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 on 26.10.2006 is passed against the principle of natural justice causing prejudice and barred by constructive Res- judicata as held in Sarguja Transport Service versus State Transport appellate Tribunal (1987)1 S. C. C. 5.( paragraph 7)

That it is submitted that there is the complete procedure prescribed for having the jurisdiction being conferred by Hon’ble the Chief Justice for deciding the special appeal and without any nomination being conferred to the particular Hon’ble Division Bench by the specific order of Hon’ble Chief Justice, the matter may not be decided by another coordinated Hon’ble Division Bench, except the Hon’ble Division Bench having the jurisdiction conferred to the different benches as per the circulation of cause list circulated to the Hon’ble benches and members of the Bar.
That the constitution of the benches as per the jurisdiction conferred and allotted to them by the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice or in accordance with his lordship’s direction under Rule 1 of Chapter V of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The Registrar shall subject to such direction as Hon’ble Chief Justice may give from time to time caused to be prepare a cause list for each day on which the court sits containing the list of cases, which may be heard by different benches of court under Rule 6 of Chapter VI of High Court Rules, 1952.
That an application for expediting of hearing of case or for listing a case out of term or for removal of case to be tried and determined by the court under Rule 4 or for withdrawal of a case under Article 228 of the Constitution of India shall be laid before Hon’ble Chief Justice (or any other judge of a bench nominated by Chief Justice in respect of any case or class of cases) for orders. Thus for having an out of term hearing of a case, the application is required to be moved before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
That in this manner, it is crystal clear that if the case is not listed in the cause list after determination of heading for what purposes aforesaid matter is being listed, the other coordinate Division Bench dealing with other jurisdiction shall not be empowered to decide such case except by getting the nomination of the matter by the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice.
That the other aspect of the matter is pertaining to the determination of the reason for which a particular case is being listed in the cause list circulated to the bench and the members of Bar, the case may not be decided by any other coordinated Division Bench without it being posted for hearing.
That the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 have been promulgated in exercise of the power conferred under Article 225 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling it on that behalf. Thus the strict observation and compliance of mandatory provisions is required to be observed by the Hon’ble Court in consonance with requirement of Principle of equity, fairness and in such circumstances if the practice and procedure prescribed in this regard is not followed then the deviations from the rules of court may violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
That in the light of the aforesaid legal propositions advanced by the deponent / writ petitioner, it is submitted that the present special appeal without being listed in the daily cause list either under the separate serial number in the cause list, nor it remain listed with the appropriate heading ‘For Hearing’, but the same has been decided without giving notice to the counsel appearing for respondent.
That under the provisions of Chapter V Rule 1 of High Court Rules, 1952, the sole prerogative of the Hon’ble Chief Justice to decide the particular subject matter conferred on particular bench for particular period. If the decision of the subject matter by some other bench is taken up without being listed at the serial number under the heading of the hearing or without the case being Part-heard or tide-up, if the decision is given by the other bench without nominating by the Hon’ble Chief Justice the judgement will be without jurisdiction and nullity.
That, it is in the interest of justice that the order dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal no. 1369 of 1999 may be set aside and the Hon’ble Chief Justice refer the matter to Hon’ble Three Judges, as justice may be done with the rights of the applicant/petitioner.
Prem Shankar Sharma, aged about 64 years, son of Sri Ram Bhajan Lal Sharma, , Lecture in English (Retired) in Ambika Prasad Intermediate College, Near Police station, Moradabad resident of Mohalla- Shuklan (Near Chaurasi Ghante of Mandir) Moradabad, District Moradabad

Anonymous said...

Complaint in respect of functioning of Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan in respect of his functioning as Allahabad High Court Judge, now elevated as Chief Justice of another High Court
To,
My lord The Chief Justice Of India,
Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India,
New Delhi
Reference- Usurpation of Compensation amount of Rs. 22, 74, 966.28/= by getting the Sale Deed executed on 25 -11-1968, in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, retired from active army in 1965 due to malignant cancer, before Sub Registrar of Registration Department set aside in reference U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act after 34 years of execution of sale deed in favour of its executer by denying the persuasion of remedy till disbursement of such amount in favour of Rank Trespassers in a calculated manner by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan
Subject- Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan refused to pass any order on the recall application as he pressurised the appellant to withdraw his First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002 on 17-11-2003 , when F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 he observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable, nor the sale deed dt. 25-11-1968 executed by Gaj Raj Singh in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala can be cancelled by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad can be cancelled. Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad has been removed from service. The other judge joining with Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan remained Junior to senior Advocate and participated F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 on behalf of the opposite parties, and despite calling for the file of F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 connected with writ petition No. 29591 of 1992 dismissed on 23/9/1996 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. M. Lal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S. Siddhu decided the matter on 17-11-2005 justifying the cancellation of sale deed dated 25-11-1968 in reference U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act.
Brief Facts -Gajraj executed the Registered sale deed on 25-11-1968 for the consideration of an amount paid to him in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, retired from active army in 1965 due to malignant cancer, before Sub Registrar of Registration Department. U/s 56, 57 and 58 of the Evidence Act, since the sub- registrar of the registration department has made the endorsement regarding the transaction, and as such, the court below should have taken the judicial notice, to the registered sale deed, and the transaction made therein u/s 80 of the Evidence Act, no oral evidence could have set aside, a registered sale deed for which the presumption u/s 90 and 90-A, as amended in Uttar Pradesh, remained in existence, in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala . Paras Ram was in no manner entitled to usurp the property belonging to Raghubir on account of he being the son of Chaman Kali and Munshi, but he got an order obtained fraudulently by making an abuse of process for incorporating his name on 18/12/1981 from A. S. D. O. Ghaziabad and thus became entitled for the reference made U/S 11/30 of Land Acquisition Act, and got his name entered in compensation amounting to Rs. 22, 74,966.28 /= . Paras Ram filed successive writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, 19462 of 1999 and 19572 of 1999 while Gajraj also filed the writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and as such neither the Gajraj, nor the Paras Ram may be said to be the illiterate person, who does not know anything about registered sale deed executed by Gajraj on 25/11/1968 in favour of petitioner and as such inference drawn in the judgement dated 29/4/2002 passed by this Hon’ble Court in respect of bonfide of Gajraj is uncalled for and the judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree dated 4/5/2002 are liable to be set aside by allowing the present application seeking revival of the matter in Defectve First Appeal No. (248) of 2002 . Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of Sharada Devi Versus State of Bihar 2003 (3) SCC 128 has laid down that since under section 3 (b) and (c) of Land Acquisition Act, the definition of “person interested” and the “Collector” have been defined.
That a dispute, as to the pre-existing right or interest in the property sought to be acquired, is not a “dispute” capable of being adjudicated upon or referred to the Civil Court for determination either u/s 30 of the Act. Thus the order passed u/s 30 on 29.4.2002 by the II A.D.J. suffers from lack of inherent jurisdiction and is therefore a nullity, and therefore liable to be declared so. writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 alongwith writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and also the order dated 10-4-2002 obtained by Paras Ram after dismissal of writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 on 23-9-1996. The issuance of writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus are totally based on different relief sought for in the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 than the prayer made in the defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002.

Chapter V Rule 8 of High Court Rules seeking connection of all 4 writ petitions bearing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999, writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002 by nominating bench of division bench, the following report was submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Justice and his lordship has taken decision by an order dated 17.11.2003 by nominating bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan J. the order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
In the meantime since the appellant on account of his being pauper and thus unable to pay the court fees moved an application under Order 44 Rule 1 C.P.C. in Defective First Appeal No. (248) of 2002.,as the opposition was made by the counsel Senior Advocate of Paras Ram and Gajraj on the said application.
That not only this the counsel for Paras Ram and Gajraj have raised their objections regarding the pendency of defective appeal as well as writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 being pursued simultaneously and at this stage when they have built up the pressure, then on account of settled proposition of law declared in case of Dr. Grant case reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 237 followed by case of State of Bihar vs. Sharda Devi 2003 S. C. C. (3) 128, Mehar Rusi Dalal 2004 S.C.C. (7) 362, it was permitted to withdraw the defective First Appeal to the counsel for the appellant, that he may not proceed the first appeal on account of non-availability of such a huge amount of court fees amounting to Rs. 1,71,032.50 paise.
That ultimately when the matter came up for hearing on 10-11-2005 then the counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram in writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 sought for withdrawal of recall application filed against the order dated 23-9-1996 being dismissed as not pressed.
That on 17-11-2005 in the judgement passed in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002, the preliminary objections raised on behalf of respondent no. 4 and 5 have been upheld and writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was dismissed.
Hon’ble Court has taken into consideration that writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was having the identical prayer as that of prayer of first appeal for setting aside the judgement and decree dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 in L.A.R. No, 421 of 1992, the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 is barred on the ground of constructive res judicata.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kunhayamad vs. State of Kerala 2000 (6) SCC 359 has held that dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal simpliciter will not deprive the appellant to avail the remedy of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. as the prohibition lies for filing the review is only after conversion of Special Leave to appeal is converted in Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus the prayer is sought for recall of the order dated 17-11-2003 passed in the present defective appeal under the wrong legal perceptions regarding the challenge made therein is based upon de hors to the provisions of section 30 of L.A. Act as well as non est and nullity within eyes of law.
Even the defective First Appeal No. 248/2002 withdrawn on 17-11-2003 on the persuasion of Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan , when his lordship observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable. Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan refused to pass any order on such application of recall of his lordship oral Prayer’s educative order dated 17.11.2003 and directed the matter to be listed on the ordinary Course. The other Senior Advocate , being the influencing lawyer got the payment of Rs. 22, 74,966.28 /= given to Gaj Raj Singh and Paras Ram through S.L.A.O. Gaziabad.
Hon’ble, the my lord the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India

That Major Jasbinder Singh Bala is retired from active army in 1965 due to malignant cancer. He is now running at the age of about 82 years with the uncertainty regarding his life due to many ailments and heart trouble. His Excellency the President of India Sri Rajendra Prasad on 4.2.1953 appreciated Major Jasbinder Singh Bala for his dedicated services in Active Army regarding his sincerity, courage and conduct. However, after fighting for the nation for about 25 years, he retired prematurely. That Gajraj executed the Registered sale deed in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala on 25-11-1968 for the consideration of an amount paid to him before Sub Registrar of Registration Department. The Registered sale deed, executed in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala by Gajraj s/o Raghubir, R/o village-prahladgarhi, pargana Loni ,Tehsil & District- Ghaziabad was in respect of land of khasara no. 445- Area 2 Bigha 3 Biswa and khasara no 639- Area 5 Bigha in khata no.26 in1375 Fasli, which was exclusively recorded in the name of Gajraj, wherein it was particularly mentioned, that there is no co-sharer and claimant over the land in dispute. Thus it was not open for Gajraj to repudiate the aforesaid undertaking mention in the sale deed. That Gajraj sold another land to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala on 08/02/1967 having Khasara No 197 comprising of 2 Beeghas and 11 Bishwa situated at prahaladgari and since the aforesaid land got lesser compensation as such the objection in respect of selling the said land unauthorisely by Gajraj was not raised by Paras Ram and Gajraj. That it has been submitted that a collusive suit bearing case no.5 of 1970 was filed by Paras Ram against Gajraj alleging therein that Paras Ram was posthumously born after the death of Raghubir Singh ,while he was actualy born from Chaman Kali and Munshi ‘( not his father)and of such he is not entitled for half share in the said property. However, by order dated 12/5/1971 in the proceedings U/S 229-H/ 209 of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act, it was directed that except by the exclusion of such plot, in which the registered sale deeds have been executed by Gajraj, Paras Ram is entitled to half of the share in the aforesaid plots.
That Paras Ram filed this collusive suit under section 229-B and209 U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act Bearing case No 5 of 1970 without impleading Major Jasbinder Singh Bala , in which, the claim set up by him that he was allegedly posthumously born after the death of Raghubir Singh, the father of Gaj Raj Singh and thus was having half share in all the land belonging to Gaj Raj and the land sold by Gaj Raj to the Petitioner and Other Persons were excluded in his share.
That Gaj Raj has sold other lands also through registered sale deed duly executed on 1/12/1966 and on 8/2/1967 in favour of petitioner. The name of the petitioner remained mentioned in these sale deeds, but Paras Ram did not raise any dispute in pursuance of these sale deeds regarding his entitlement of his share. The dispute was raised only in regard to sale deed executed on 25/11/1968, in which the compensation assessed, while making an award of rupees 22,74,966/-and 28 paisa.
That thus u/s 56, 57 and 58 of the Evidence Act, since the sub- registrar of the registration department has made the endorsement regarding the transaction, and as such, the court below should have taken the judicial notice, to the registered sale deed, and the transaction made therein u/s 80 of the Evidence Act, no oral evidence could have set aside, a registered sale deed for which the presumption u/s 90 and 90-A, as amended in Uttar Pradesh, remained in existence, in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala .
That subject, to the aforesaid objection raised at the very onset, and making the denial to rights conferred with Gaj Raj and Paras Ram on the basis of an exparte collusive suit, for getting the name of Paras Ram illegally in the award, the matter was contested before the court below.
That in the judgement dated 12. 5. 1971, it is mentioned especially for the purposes of demonstrating the findings on the issue no. 3, in which it is clearly mentioned that since the plots regarding which the sale deed has been executed, have been excluded, this issue need not be discussed.
That since the name of other person Ram kishan was already deleted by the order dated 27.4.1971, as such the aforesaid judgement dated 12.5.1971 was confined only to the extent of such plots in which the sale deed were not executed in favour of different parties namely Ram Kishan . Major Jasbinder Singh Bala and Kanshi Ram, as referred in the subsequent judgement.
That this was on account of these facts, that Additional Commissioner has rejected the Revision by judgement dated 2/6/1976 which was filed challenging the order passed by Additional S. D. O. Ghaziabad on 12/9/1975 rejecting the application of Paras Ram for Amaldaramad.
That despite the rejection of claim up to the stage of Additional Commissioner, the Paras Ram managed to manipulate for circumventing the effect of finality of the order passed by Additional Commissioner, moved an application before Asst. S. D. O. in 1981 with a prayer to record his name to Amaldaramad to the extent of held of its share. In the aforesaid application he got the plot no. 445 and 639 included, which was belonging to the petitioner and finality has been arrived in respect of these plots by the final judgement dated 2/6/1976 Revisional court by exclusion of these plots for mutation in favour of Paras Ram.
That these Persons even after being lost Upto the stage of Revision No.144 of 1975-76 on 2/6/1976 in the mutation proceedings, Paras Ram got his name included to the half portion of share land by an fraudulent, misconceived , void–ab-initio and ex-parte order dated 18/12/1981 passed by the Asst. S. D. O. in respect of these plots belonging to the petitioner in the sheer abuse of the process of the Revenue courts. The name of Paras Ram, on the basis of fraudulent aforesaid entry made in Revenue Record, appeared in the impugned award to half of the total amount which was legally required to be paid to the petitioner namely Major Jasbinder Singh Bala in land acquisition proceedings and as such the challenge was made before the S.L.A.O and also in the court below.
That this matter was finalized up to the stage of Additional Commissioner Meerut Division in revision no. 144/ 1975-1976 by order dated 26/1976 wherein it was held that land pertaining to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala shall remain excluded in pursuance of the order obtained exparte on 12/5/1971 by Paras Ram in collusion with Gajraj. The said order dated 2/6/1976 became final in the mutation proceedings. However, on 10/12/1981 , Paras Ram got his name recorded again in revenue records along with the name of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala to the extent of half of share when the plots no. 445 and 629 are 7.3 Bighas were acquired under Land Acquisition proceedings.
That in the meantime the land was acquired by the state Govt. and as such a suit was filed by Gajraj U/S 229 B of U. P. L. A. Z. R. Act seeking the declaration to the extent of further half of share of remaining land apart from share of Paras Ram alleged to have already been decided between the parties. The aforesaid proceedings are still pending before A. S. D. O. Gaziabad.
That it is well proposition of Law that recording of name in the mutation proceedings has not conferred any title upon recorded tenure holder. It has been held inre, Nirman Singh versus Rudra Pratap Singh A. I. R. 1926 Privy Council page 100, Nageshwar Bux Singh versus H. Ganesha A. I. R. 1920 Privy Council page 46, Durga Prasad versus Ghanshayam Das A. I. R. 1948 Privy Council page 210, Ramanna versus Samtha Murthi A. I. R. 1961 page 361, Mohindar Singh versus State of Punjab A. I. R. 1977 S. C. page 2012, Vatti Cherukuru Village Panchayat versus Noori Venkata Rama Dixithule 1991 A. I. R. S. C. W. page 1303 and in Naval Shankar Ishwar Dawe versus State of Gujrat A. I. R. 1994 S. C. page 1496 that mutation of name in revenue record are not evidence of title. Thus no rights have been accrued to Paras Ram/ petitioner for realisation of amount stated in the writ petition no 23591 of 1992 in the tune of Rs. 11,37,483.14 Paisa in the said proceedings.
That apart from this that writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 was filed by Paras Ram without impleading the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition . Fraud and Justice never dwell together (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) as the fraud neither deceit defend or excuse no man (Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent). Fraud avoids all the judicial acts and order obtain by fraud is a nullity and thereby rendering the entire action void. AIR 1994 SC 853 –S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath J T 1996(7) 135- Indian Bank Vs. M/s Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 8 SCC 512 –Bank of India Vs. Vijay Transport and others.
That the proceedings in L. A. R. no. 130 of 1996 filed by Paras Ram have been stayed in writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, while the proceedings of L. A. R. no.131 of 1996 U/S 18,30 filed by Gajraj have also been stayed in writ petition no. 19555 of 1999, while the present reference U/S 30 which was not a declaratory suit has been decided by the Court below on 29/4/2002. There may not be two parallel proceedings running simultaneously between the parties in the same court in which one may remain suspended and other may be decided in a premeditated manner despite the bar created under the statue. Thus the order and judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree passed therein are liable to be set aside.
That Paras Ram and Gajraj have misrepresented themselves to be illiterate person, while both of them are very clever and shrood persons , who got the collusive suit filed and decided U/S 229B/ 209 of U. P. S. A. L. R. Act behind the back of petitioner on 12/5/1971 and despite the fact that Paras Ram is in no manner entitled to usurp the property belonging to Raghubir on account of he being the son of Chaman Kali and Munshi, but he got an order obtained fraudulently by making an abuse of process for incorporating his name on 18/12/1981 from A. S. D. O. Ghaziabad and thus became entitled for the reference made U/S 11/30 of Land Acquisition Act.
That this Paras Ram filed successive writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, 19462 of 1999 and 19572 of 1999 while Gajraj also filed the writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and as such neither the Gajraj, nor the Paras Ram may be said to be the illiterate person, who does not know anything about registered sale deed executed by Gajraj on 25/11/1968 in favour of petitioner and as such inference drawn in the judgement dated 29/4/2002 passed by this Hon’ble Court in respect of bonfide of Gajraj is uncalled for and the judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree dated 4/5/2002 are liable to be set aside by allowing the present application.
That on the one hand all these things has been done, while on the other hand Paras Ram and Gajraj entered into compromise with Ram Kishan, the other person, who has purchased the land prior to judgement passed on 12/5/1971 in which the name of Ram Kishan was deleted by order dated 27/4/1971. Gajraj got the compromises given effect by permitting Ram Kishan to realise the entire compensation.
That in this manner the action of respondents namely Paras Ram and Gajraj is calculated abuse of process by making a mockery to the entire administration of justice through their reprehensible conduct by exercising their pernicious influence beyond the parties to action i.e. to the appellant Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, who is an old person running at the age of about 80 years after completing his sincere and dedicated services for maintaining the security and integrity of nation for 25 years in Army and as such a daring raid may not by allowed to be perpetuated by invaders of the due administration of justice.
That the conduct of Paras Ram is so reprehensible that by making the protest of having a misrepresented the said order dated 23/9/1996 in the Execution case no. 8 of 1997 as he moved an application on 29/11/1996. On the basis of said application he sought for having realisation of money in the tune of Rupees 11,33,983.40 Paisa. It was only on the basis of an application filed on behalf of State Govt. when such proceedings could have been stopped and thereafter a letter was issued on 27/10/1997 addressed to IIIrd Additional District Judge that against such a frivolous execution proceedings no. 8 of 1997 Paras Ram should be penalized by Rs. 50,000/-
That the pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 was to the exclusion of the proceedings decided on 29/4/2002 by the court of IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad.
That the writ petition no. 19572 of 1999, 19462 of 1999 and 19555 of 1999 are cognizable by the learned single judge, but no special appeal is maintainable arising out of the order in the said proceedings, while the first appeal no. (248) of 2002 is cognizable by the Division Bench as the valuation of said appeal is 22,74,966.28 Paise.
That on one hand the writ petition No. 29591 of 1992 was presented on 15/7/1992, while simultaneously the parallel proceedings in L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992 under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act was initiated in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. However, simultaneously other collateral proceedings having L. A. R. no. 130 of 1996 by Paras Ram and L. A. R. no. 131 of 1996 by Gajraj were initiated before the Additional District Judge U/S 18 30 of Land Acquisition Act, but the said proceedings U/S 18 of Land Acquisition Act were stayed in writ petition no. 19462 of 1999 ( Paras Ram vs II nd A. D. J. Ghaziabad and others) and writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 (Gajraj vs. II nd A. D. J. Ghaziabad & Others)on 12/5/1999. That even in the proceedings of L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992, the writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 was filed by Paras Ram in respect of order dated 7/4/1999 in which this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the Paras Ram to issue notice to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, who has recorded his appearance in the aforesaid case in pursuance of order passed on 12/5/1999 in writ petition no. 19572 of 1999.

That on one hand the petitioner is persuading the present remedy for realisation of alleged compensation in which the writ petition was finally dismissed on 23/9/1996 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. M. Lal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S. Siddhu and without having any order being obtained on the review application, the order dated 10/4/2002 has been obtained by Paras Ram behind the back of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala. The aforesaid order passed by this Hon’ble Court is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court as justice may be done with the rights of bonfide title owner and actual receipient of the amount of compensation in the tune of Rs. 22,74, 966.28 Paisa. That although the collateral proceedings initiated in different forum are prohibited to run simultaneously in view of restriction imposed under section 10 of C. P. C. read with principle of constructive res judicata. acquiescence and estoppel.
That at the very outset, it is most humbly submitted that the order passed on 29.4.2002 by the II A.D.J. Gaziabad in L.A.R No. 421 of 1992, U/S 30 of land Acquisition Act has been decided by impugned order and judgement beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the reference made regarding apportionment of the amount of compensation under the aforesaid provision. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of Sharada Devi Versus State of Bihar 2003 (3) SCC 128 has laid down that since under section 3 (b) and (c) of Land Acquisition Act, the definition of “person interested” and the “Collector” have been defined.
That a dispute, as to the pre-existing right or interest in the property sought to be acquired, is not a “dispute” capable of being adjudicated upon or referred to the Civil Court for determination either u/s 30 of the Act. Thus the order passed u/s 30 on 29.4.2002 by the II A.D.J. suffers from lack of inherent jurisdiction and is therefore a nullity, and therefore liable to be declared so.
That, the matter of apportionment does not fail within ambit of “Dispute” under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, but it appears that the learned A. D. J. has passed the judgement and order dated 29/4/2002 in L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992 wholly without jurisdiction in the aforesaid matter while deciding the case U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act as that of a declaratory suit, which is not permissible within eyes of law.
That u/s 12 (1) and section 29 of the Land Acquisition Act, the finality of the award is attributed between the “persons interested”. The definition of “persons interested” speaks of or interest in the compensation to be made. Thus invoking section 30 of land Acquisition Act, to the pre-existing right on the land and entitlement of compensation, may only be left upon to be adjudicated by any independent proceedings.
That the said order has been passed in derogation to present proceedings initiated by way of filing the present writ petition and the same is not illegal and void, but on account of making as abuse of process through reprehensible conduct of petitioner, the same are also contemptuous in the light of the case of Advocate General Bihar vs M/S Madhya Pradesh Khair Industry 1981 (3) S. C. C. 311.
That the S. L. A. O. passed an order and Award on 19/9/1990 illegally, stating therein that although the compensation to the extent of half of the award as per the name being recorded in the revenue record in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala is payable, but the same in the tune of Rs. 11,33,983.40 Paisa is still required for disbursement, but the court below has further exceeded the power, propriety and jurisdiction in passing the impugned order depriving the petitioner from total amount of compensation beyond the scope of the reference made U/S 30 of land acquisition Act. That in the revenue records the name of Jasbinder Singh Bala was recorded from the dated of execution of Registered sale deed, which was still continuing.
That ultimately the writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 was dismissed on 23/9/1996. Surprisingly without giving any notice to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala in furtherance of the alleged restoration application in writ petition No. 23591 of 1992, Paras Ram got an order ex party behind the back of the petitioner for disbursement of an amount of Rupees 11,37,483.14 Paisa . This an abuse of the process in calculated manners , which is a criminal contempt .Advocate General, Bihar Vs. M/S Kher Industries 1980 (3) SCC 311. On 29.4.2002, in the Impugn order in LAR NO.421 of 1992 has been passed by the II nd ADJ Ghaziabad under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act in which the registered sale deed dated 25.11.1968 executed about 34 years back by Gaj Raj has been set aside while on the basis of frivolous entry recorded by order dated 18. 12. 1981 fraudulently from Assistant SDM even after dismissal of the revision by Additional SDO and Additional Commissioner on 12.9. 1975 and 2.6.1976 respectively which is void and ab initio .
That on one hand, the present proceedings U/S 30 are dealt with, while simultaneously the proceedings U/S 18 ,30 of Land Acquisition Act bearing L. A. R. no. 130 of 1996 filed by Paras Ram and L. A. R. no. 131 of 1996 by Gajraj are pending in the court of IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid proceedings Jasbinder Singh Bala moved an application for impleading him as the party, which was allowed by order dated 8/4/1999.
That feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the writ petition no. 19462 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 were filed in which notices were issued to the deponent.
That surprisingly enough to state that although a writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 has been filed for quashing the order dated 7/4/1999 passed by the Court below, in which in compliance of order of District Judge to decide the case expeditiously and the issues was directed to decide at one time of both the parties. It is submitted that Paras Ram has also sought for quashing the proceedings of L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992 which has been decided by the judgement dated 29/4/2002 in spite the pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999.
That the pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 filed by Paras Ram, wherein he has sought for setting aside the proceedings of Reference case no. 421 of 1992 on the issue of Res judicata and also sought for staying the further proceedings of reference no. 421 of 1992 pending before IInd A. D. J. Ghaziabad and as such since there was no occasion to proceed further in deciding the matter on 29/4/2002 during pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and as such the judgement and decree dated 29/4/2002 and 4/5/2002 are liable to be set aside as the said proceedings has been decided in derogation to the proceedings in writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 filed by Paras Ram.

That on 9.5.2002, the Petitioner filed the review application for reviewing the order dated 29.4.2002 , which has been dismiassed on 3.2.2003 by ( Smt. Sadhana Choudhary) the 2nd ADJ herself .
That thereafter the appellant moved an application before the District Judge, Ghaziabad on 11.7.2002 seeking transfer of review application through transfer application no. 397 of 2002 and when the District Judge rejected the said application on 17-8-2002, the prayer were incorporated in relations thereof in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 alongwith writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and also the order dated 10-4-2002 obtained by Paras Ram after dismissal of writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 on 23-9-1996. The issuance of writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus are totally based on different relief sought for in the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 than the prayer made in the defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002.
That ultimately Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary then posted as IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad rejected the review application on 3-2-2003 by the detail order, wherein the jurisdictional error committed in passing the order dated 29-4-2002 was pointed out by the counsel for the appellant.
That the order passed in review application no. 31 of 2002 on 3-2-2003 was also challenged by filing an amendment application on 12-3-2003 bearing amendment application no…… of 2003 in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002. However, the counter affidavit was called upon on the aforesaid amendment application by an order dated 29-12-2003, but the said amendment application remained pending till the decision of writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 decided on 17.11.2005 on the ground of its maintainability.

On 12.3.2003 the amendment Application challenging the order dated 3.2.2003 rejecting the review Application No.31 of 02 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad is filed. That in this manner, there has been multiplicity of the proceedings taken place upto this stage by filing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 ( Paras Ram vs. State of U.P ), writ petition no. 19462 of 1996 ( Paras Ram Vs. State of U.P.), writ petition No. 19555 of 1996 ( Gajraj vs. State of U.P.) and writ petition no. 19572 of 1996 ( Paras Ram versus State of U.P.) and also the order dated 10-4-2002, which were clearly demonstrative of the facts that against an Army Personnel, who has sacrificed his life for providing security to the citizens against external aggression is jeopardising his right not on account of only the manipulated and frivolous proceeding instituted by Paras Ram and Gajraj, but also on account of orders passed and obtained by this persons from this Hon’ble Court.
That according to the settled proposition of law advanced by the Apex Court, the latest decision on the point of making / forwarding the reference by S.L.A.O to the court of District judge/ Additional District Judge, the individual should be the ‘ PERSON INTERESTED’ as defined under section 9 (3) of L.A. Act (Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta 2005 (12) SCC Page 1 and a stranger to the award namely Gajraj . who sold his land on 25.11.1968 through Registered Sale Deed is not entitled to claim his entitlement for compensation in the present reference . The present reference is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of A.I.R. 1965 S.C. Page 304 has clearly held that the pre-existing right of the person whose name does not find place in the award may not get entitlement for moving the reference either u/s 18 or 30 of the L.A. Act. That in case of Mehar Rusi Dalal Vs. Union of India (2004) 7 SCC 362 / A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 3491, it has been held that the person who is not entitled to make the reference u/s 18, the said person was not interested to get the decision for realisation of award u/s 30 regarding his alleged apportionment of the share. Thus the judgment dated 29.4.2002 is de hors to the provisions and non est. , which has no evidencery value against the right of the objector to realize the entire compensation.That the Hon’ble Supreme court has further held in case of Ahad Bross vs. State of M.P. 2005 ( 1 )SCC page 545 that a person who is not the’ person interested” may not agitate any claim u/s 18 of the L.A. Act. Thus the present reference filed by Gajraj is liable to be rejected.
That the objector had already moved to the S.L.A.O. for referring the reference u/s 18 on 6/7 April, 1989 to the District Judge Ghaziabad, but inspite the acceptance of the aforesaid application by the rival group of the claimants, the same has not been independently registered as the reference. Thus apart from being impleaded as the respondent, the objector was having his independent right to get the realisation of award of Rs. 22.74.966.28 Paise from the Court of I1nd Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad. The order and judgment passed on 29.4.2002 followed with a decree dated 4.5.2002 is a nullity and non est for having evidence value to curtail the right of the objector for realisation of compensation. The review application after due amendment in the prayer of the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 filed by the objector is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court.
That in this manner the claim of the objector is squarely covered within the purview of maintainability of application of award independently as well as by virtue of being impleaded in the present reference by order dated 7.4.1999 which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble High court on 10.11.2005 rejecting the writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 filed by Gajraj.
That this stage on 29-4-2002 the L.A.R. No. 421 of 1992 was decided as de hors to the said provisions of apportionment of the compensation between the ‘INTERESTED PERSON’, which could not have the jurisdiction entail to decide it as a “DISPUTE” nor the adjudication of “ PRE-EXISTENT RIGHT ”, if any, could have been taken place by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary, II Additional District judge, Ghaziabad declaring Paras Ram and Gajraj, being entitled to get the compensation of 50 – 50 percent calculated as Rs. 22,74,966.28 Paise i.e. each were entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.11,37,483.14 Paise.
That surprisingly the decree was also prepared of said amount on 4-5-2002 against which the appellant fled review application on 9-5-2002 seeking review of the order dated 29-4-2002 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary, II Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad.
That on 9-5-2002 the appellant filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble court bearing writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 with the following prayers :-

1) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from disbursement of amount awarded in pursuance of judgement dated 29-4-2002 in L.A.R. No, 421 of 1992 under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, during the pendency of Reference 18 of the Act between the parties.
2) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declaration of the amount of Rs.22,966.28 paise on the basis of impugned judgement dated 29-4-2002 in favour of respondent no. 4 and 5 in the proceedings u/s 30 decided like a declaratory suit by setting aside the registered sale deed executed on 25-11-1968 as unconstitutional and void.
3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17-8-2002 passed by respondent mo.6 rejecting the transfer application no, 397 of 2002,
4) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus in the alternative that proceedings of review application no. 31 of 2002 may kindly be directed to be decided by some other Addl. District judge in view of the fact that matter was referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for initiating an enquiry and for directing the same to be decided by the Court nominated by District Judge, Ghaziabad.
5) To issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case.”

That in the meantime, since the memo of appeal was also prepared in July, 2002 for which the appellant was not sure as to whether the Ad-volerum court fees amounting to Rs. 1,71,032.50 Paise is required to be paid or not ?, after filing the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 ( Major Jasbinder Singh Bala Vs. II Addl. District Judge Ghaziabad & others), it was deemed proper to filed the defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002.
That the facts regarding preparation of the First Appeal was clearly mention in the Paragraph no. 42 of the writ petition, which states the clear picture emerged at the time of filing the writ petition on 5-9-2002 and regarding the preparation of memo of appeal stating Rs. 1,71,032.50 Paise reported as Ad-volerum court fees required to be paid. Thus filing of writ petition and filing of defective First Appeal being considered by taking all such back grounds into mind, it is submitted that the appellant has availed both the remedies with the different prayers, on which the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 and the defective First Appeal was filed on 5-9-2002. The paragraph no. 42 of the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 is reproduced as under :-
“ 42. That the Appellant is also submitted that there is no remedy for the Appellant to challenge the order and decree dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 respectively passed by IInd additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in L.A.R. no. 421 of 1992 under section 30 of land acquisition Act. There is proceedings of section 54 of Land acquisition Act to file the First Appeal in respect of cases decided u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, wherein a decree could have been passed after determination of amount in respect of entitlement of different claimants. In case the Appellant pursue the remedy of filing the appeal, he is required to deposits Rs.1.71.032.50 Paise as the Court fees for the said appeal as the courts fees ad-volerum is required to be paid. Thus the aforesaid appeal is neither amenable for the Appellant to have been filed by depositing such a huge amount for conferring his right specially under the circumstances when the respondents has himself proceeded to file the writ petition no. 23591 of 192, it has been held in Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234 that the award given by land Acquisition Officer is not a decree within meaning of section 2 (2) of C.P.C. and as such, the same is not tenable for execution by Civil court and thus the writ petition is amenable for realization of compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer.”
That an application was filed by the appellant under Chapter V Rule 8 of High Court Rules seeking connection of all 4 writ petitions bearing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999, writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 and defective First Appeal no. (248) of 2002 by nominating bench of division bench, the following report was submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Justice and his lordship has taken decision by an order dated 17.11.2003 by nominating bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan J. the order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice are reproduced as under :-
“ In his application dated 4th November 2003 filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38064 / 2002, Sri Y.K. Saxena, Advocate, counsel for Appellant has made a prayer that the said writ petition be decided along with writ petition no. 23591/1992, Paras Ram Vs. State of U.P. and other, writ petition no. 19572/1999 Paras Ram Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad and others, writ petition no. 19462 /1999 Paras Ram Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, writ petition no. ------ Gajraj Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad ( the number of the writ petition has not been mentioned in the prayer but it appears that writ petition Number should be 19555/1999) and First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
By order dated 09-09-2002, writ petition nos. 19462/1999 and 19555/1999 have been connected with this writ petition ( W.P. No. 38064/2002 )
In the present writ petition (No. 38064/2002) the Appellant has prayed for issuing a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from disbursing the amount awarded in pursuance of judgment passed in L.A.R. 421/1992 (with respect to land Khasra No. 45 area 2-3-0 and Khasra No. 639, area 5-0-0), situated at Prahlad Garhi, Loni, Ghaziabad.
In writ petition no. 23591/2002 the Appellant has sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent to make payment of compensation in respect of the same land (Para No. 1 of this writ petition).
In writ petition No, 19572/1999, the Appellant has sought a relief of certiorari quashing order dated 07-0 –1999 rejecting the application of the Appellant to decide the point of res judicata preliminarily, and also seeking mandamus to decide the same. A prayer for stay of the proceedings of the said case has also been made. The case mentioned in the said petition is also in respect of the land ( para no. 4 of the petition).
In First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002 the award of compensation made in respect of the acquisition of the aforesaid land has been challenged.
In view of the aforesaid facts, all the above cases relates to the same subject matter.
Report submitted for kind perusal.”
“” The matters are assigned to the bench presided over by Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.””
Sd. Hon’ble The chief Justice Dated 17-11-2003
That in the meantime since the appellant on account of his being pauper and thus unable to pay the court fees moved an application under Order 44 Rule 1 C.P.C., the opposition was made by the counsel of Paras Ram and Gajraj on the said application.
That not only this the counsel for Paras Ram and Gajraj have raised their objections regarding the pendency of defective appeal as well as writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 being pursued simultaneously and at this stage when they have built up the pressure, then on account of settled proposition of law declared in case of Dr. Grant case reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 237 followed by case of State of Bihar vs. Sharda Devi 2003 S. C. C. (3) 128, Mehar Rusi Dalal 2004 S.C.C. (7) 362, it was permitted to withdraw the defective First Appeal to the counsel for the appellant as the appellant has already requested to his counsel, that he may not proceed the first appeal on account of non-availability of such a huge amount of court fees amounting to Rs. 1,71,032.50 paise.
That the impleadment application was allowed by this Hon’ble Court on the same date having the impleadment of state of U.P. through Secretary Avas, Secretariat, Lucknow and District Magistrate/ Collector Ghaziabad as parties to array of respondents being respondent no. 7 and 8 respectively, which was also incorporated on 18.12.2003 by the counsel for the appellant, The order allowing the impleadment application and inviting counter affidavit on two amendment applications ( one for seeking quashing of order dated 3-2-2003 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad for which amendment application was filed on 12-3-2003 and another amendment having writ of certiorari for setting aside the judgement dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad ).
That the said orders were passed in view of facts that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down in number of cases including in case of Dr. Grant case (Supra ), Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad has not only committed an error by deciding the reference of section 30 of L. A. Act pertaining to apportionment like that of civil suit, but also decided the pre-existing right therein. The orders passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad on 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 are non est and nullity, which can appropriately be challenged by incorporating additional prayer and thus the burden of this Hon’ble court will be lightened for deciding the fact as to whether ad-volerum court fees is at all may be required to be paid and as to whether the appellant is an indigent person or not ?. Thus in this back ground coupled with incapability of appellant to pay the aforesaid court fees, the defective First Appeal was withdrawn by keeping into mind that same is not amenable against a judgment regarding apportionment of compensation claim decided under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
That in this context, it is further submitted that as the appeal lies only against a judgement passed in reference under section 18 of L. A. Act i.e. under section 54 of L. A. Act and when the provisions of appeal are itself in existence in the aforesaid special enactment created by the Parliament, there may not be the appeal required to be filed under section 96 against the order and decree passed under section 30 of L. A. Act by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad having the adjudication of the said proceedings as that of civil suit and that too regarding pre-existing right fabricated on account of wrong mutation entry obtained by Paras Ram by committing fraud upon the statute and also to the proceedings of this Hon’ble Court, which were simultaneously conducted by them ( Paras Ram and Gajraj ) on the basis of which the bench presided over by DR. B.S. Chauhan was nominated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice. Thus withdrawal of defective first appeal may not construed as that of forfeiture of rights of appellant for ever as he has acted on the basis of legal advise taken from different lawyers of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the lawyers of this Hon’ble Court and thus without moving any application the defective first appeal was permitted to be withdrawn by the nominated bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
That ultimately on 10-11-2005, when the arguments were advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram then all the 5 writ petitions were taken together and at that time an objection was raised that writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 us barred by constructive Res judicata on account of dismissal of defective first appeal no. (248) of 2002 filed in respect of similar relief. The counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram and Gajraj also raised the allegation of forum hunting. It is submitted that when the counsel for the appellant made counter allegations against Paras Ram and Gajraj regarding forum hunting by filing writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 and writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999, then all such writ petitions were sought to be withdrawn on 10-11-2005 itself.
That similarly the writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 were also sought to be withdrawn on 10-11-2005 as the allegation of forum hunting raised against the rank usurpers Paras Ram and Gajraj may not be leveled against them and as such they sought for withdrawal of all 4 writ petitions and the matter was confined only to writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 by forgiving all such back grounds remained there at the time of filing the aforesaid writ petition and connecting all such 5 writ petitions and defective appeal by an order dated 17-11-2003.
That ultimately when the matter came up for hearing on 10-11-2005 then the counsel appearing on behalf of Paras Ram in writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 sought for withdrawal of recall application filed against the order dated 23-9-1996 being dismissed as not pressed.
That on 17-11-2005 in the judgement passed in writ petition no. 38064 of 2002, the preliminary objections raised on behalf of respondent no. 4 and 5 have been upheld and writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was dismissed.
That against the dismissal of writ petition no. 38064 of 2002, the appellant filed the Special Leave to Appeal no. 2946 of 2006 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has been dismissed simplicitor in limine without permitting the appellant to get it converted in Civil Appeal, may not bar the filing of the present Review application before this Hon’ble Court.
That since this Hon’ble Court has taken into consideration that writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 was having the identical prayer as that of prayer of first appeal for setting aside the judgement and decree dated 29-4-2002 and 4-5-2002 in L.A.R. No, 421 of 1992, the writ petition no. 38064 of 2002 is barred on the ground of constructive res judicata.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kunhayamad vs. State of Kerala 2000 (6) SCC 359 has held that dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal simpliciter will not deprive the appellant to avail the remedy of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. as the prohibition lies for filing the review is only after conversion of Special Leave to appeal in Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus the prayer is sought for recall of the order dated 17-11-2003 passed in the present defective appeal under the wrong legal perceptions regarding the challenge made therein is based upon de hors to the provisions of section 30 of L.A. Act as well as non est and nullity within eyes of law.
That the appellant is an Ex-Army personnel and on account of incapability of the appellant to approach this Hon’ble Court in the different forum of redressal of grievances and thus remained acting on the basis of advise given by the many prominent counsel of Hon’ble Supreme Court and only thereafter has instructed his counsel to withdraw the defective first appeal on 17-11-2003 as the appellant remained under the impression that writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 and three other writ petitions filed in the years 1999 are maintainable, while the appeal does not lies under section 54 and section 96 may not be attracted in the present case. That it is, however, in fact and circumstances of case that this Hon’ble Court has held on 17-11-2005 that writ petition no. 38064 0f 2002 is not maintainable and the Special Leave to Appeal filed against the said judgment has been dismissed summarily. The appellant is seeking recall of order dated 17-12-2003 that the appellant is a old person running at the age of 83 years and suffering from malign cancer. He has got the impairment of speech and is unable to walk like that of ordinary person. He has given a youth time for protecting integrity of our nation till his retirement after 1965 war and thus the appellant is tendering his unqualified apology for permitting him to withdraw his defective appeal by giving said instruction to his counsel under the wrong legal advise of prominent counsel practicing in Hon’ble Supreme Court. That under these circumstances, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the order dated 17-11-2003 may kindly be recalled / reviewed in the light of aforesaid circumstances of case. The defective appeal may be restored to its original number, as justice may be done with the rights of the appellant.
Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan refused to pass any order on the recall application as he pressurised the appellant to withdraw his First Appeal Defective No. 248/2002 on 17-11-2003 , when F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 he observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable, nor the sale deed dt. 25-11-1968 executed by Gaj Raj Singh in favour of Major Jasbinder Singh Bala can be cancelled by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad can be cancelled. Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary 2nd A.D.J. Gaziabad has been removed from service. The other judge joining with Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chahan remained Junior to senior Advocate and participated F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 on behalf of the opposite parties, and despite calling for the file of F.A.F.O. 464 of 1990 connected with writ petition No. 29591 of 1992 dismissed on 23/9/1996 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. M. Lal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S. Siddhu decided the matter on 17-11-2005 justifying the cancellation of sale deed dated 25-11-1968 in reference U/S 30 of Land Acquisition Act.
Even the defective First Appeal No. 248/2002 withdrawn on 17-11-2003 on the persuasion of Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan , when his lordship observed in open court that as per the ratio laid down in Dr. Grant Case, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Sarda Devi Case , Smt, Shyamlata Jauhari vs. Collector, reported in 1990 A.W.C. page 1234, the Appeal U/S 54 of Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable. Hon’ble Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan refused to pass any order on such application of recall of his lordship oral Prayer’s educative order dated 17.11.2003 and directed the matter to be listed on the ordinary Course. The other Senior Advocate, being the influencing lawyer got the payment of Rs. 22, 74,966.28 /= given to Gaj Raj Singh and Paras Ram through S.L.A.O. Gaziabad.

Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, S/o Sri Bachan Singh Bala,R/o- Bala Farm, Sector –9 Vaishali , Ghaziabad

Anonymous said...

[url=http://firgonbares.net/][img]http://firgonbares.net/img-add/euro2.jpg[/img][/url]
[b]adobe software educational discount, [url=http://firgonbares.net/]can i buy used software[/url]
[url=http://firgonbares.net/][/url] canadian educational software cheap software now
microsoft sql server software [url=http://firgonbares.net/]kaspersky reviews[/url] discount computer software
[url=http://firgonbares.net/]autocad free[/url] software stores canada
[url=http://firgonbares.net/]nero 9 review[/url] adobe acrobat reader 9 free download
educational software publisher [url=http://firgonbares.net/]autocad help[/b]

Anonymous said...

[url=http://sunkomutors.net/][img]http://sunkomutors.net/img-add/euro2.jpg[/img][/url]
[b]cheap flights software, [url=http://sunkomutors.net/]order indigo rose software[/url]
[url=http://sunkomutors.net/][/url] business oem software canadian software resellers
adobe software registration [url=http://sunkomutors.net/]opening coreldraw files[/url] cheapest software anywhere reviews
[url=http://sunkomutors.net/]software developers in canada[/url] buy animation software
[url=http://sunkomutors.net/]windows xp themes[/url] where to buy adobe dreamweaver
nik software discount [url=http://sunkomutors.net/]design software to buy[/b]

Anonymous said...

[url=http://murudobaros.net/][img]http://murudobaros.net/img-add/euro2.jpg[/img][/url]
[b]navicat vs filemaker pro, [url=http://murudobaros.net/]software shop[/url]
[url=http://murudobaros.net/]where can i buy dreamweaver[/url] filemaker pro database development adobe acrobat 9 pro extended
0 Mac Logic [url=http://murudobaros.net/]tutorial adobe photoshop cs3[/url] to sell oem software
[url=http://murudobaros.net/]cheapest windows xp software[/url] software for purchase order
[url=http://murudobaros.net/]educators discount software[/url] latest downloadable software
kaspersky 7.0 free license [url=http://murudobaros.net/]adobe software for sale[/b]

Anonymous said...

[url=http://bariossetos.net/][img]http://vonmertoes.net/img-add/euro2.jpg[/img][/url]
[b]oem software be, [url=http://hopresovees.net/]kaspersky virus protector[/url]
[url=http://bariossetos.net/][/url] cheap pc software place to buy adobe photoshop
retail shop software [url=http://bariossetos.net/]Standart Edition Mac[/url] purchase application software
[url=http://hopresovees.net/]Mac Readiris[/url] kaspersky work space security reviews
[url=http://hopresovees.net/]adobe software sale[/url] coreldraw graphics suite x3 downloads
student discounts on adobe software [url=http://bariossetos.net/]software installation price[/b]

Anonymous said...

I'm looking for a 750GB 7200RPM hard drive for my Dell Vostro 1520. The 250GB I have only runs in Safe Mode because of a virus I can't remove. I want an external hard drive so I can take the 750GB and put it in my laptop, install Windows on it and then put my 250GB into the external enclosure and copy all my files to the 750GB. What is the cheapest one to get? [url=http://gordoarsnaui.com]santoramaa[/url]