Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Citizenship of Sonia-Rahul Gandhi?

Application U/S 151 of CPC
Home | Order Dt. 9th May 2006 | Application U/S 151 of CPC | Written Arguments in support of Restoration Petition | Synopsis of the facts | Main Writ Petition | 2001-SC Judgment on Sonia Gandhi

IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT AT DELHI

(Original Side)

  Civil  Misc. Petition No.              of 2006
                     
In the matter of:
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790  of 2006

 

In the matter of:

Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

                                               

In the matter of:

Application Under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for restoration of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006 in conformity with the Judgment dated 12th September 2001, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced by a Bench comprising of Hon’ble CJI, R.C. Lahoti & Doraiswamy Raju JJ., in Appeal (civil) No. 4400 of 2000 along with C.A. No.4405/2000 pronounced by R. C. Lahoti J., reported in the AIR: 2001:SC at pages: 3689 to 3703 recalling the Order Dated 9th May 2006 for the ends of justice;

 

In the matter of:

Milap Choraria,

Son of late Shri Deep Chand Choraria

Permanent Address: P.O. Tamkore, District: Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

Presently Resident of B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini,

Delhi-110085……….                                Petitioner

 

                                                                        -Vs-

           

1.                   Union of India,

Through Cabinet Secretary to the Government of India,

Rashtrapati Bhawan,

New Delhi-110004

 

2.                   The Secretary to the Government of India,

The Ministry of Home Affairs,

North Block, Central Secretariat,

New Delhi - 110 001

 

3.                   The Secretary to the Government of India,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

North Block,

New Delhi-110001

 

4.                   Indian Embassy in Italy represented by

Indian Ambassador to Italy,

Through Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, North Block,

New Delhi-110001

 

5.         The Secretary to the Government of India,

Ministry of Home Affairs,
Foreigners Division,
Jaisalmer House, 26 Man Singh Road,
New Delhi-110 011

 

6.         Smt. Sonia Gandhi,

Wife of Late Shri Rajiv Gandhi,

10, Janpath,

New Delhi-110001

 

7.         Shri Rahul Gandhi,

Son of Late Shri Rajiv Gandhi,

10, Janpath,

New Delhi-110001          ……     RESPONDENTS

 

To,

The Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and

His Companion Justices of Delhi High Court,

The Humble Petition on behalf of the Petitioner above named;

Most Respect Sheweth,

1.                    That the Petitioner filed aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006 as a Public Interest Litigation in complete conformity with the aforesaid Judgment dated 12th September 2001, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and moved on 9th May 2006, when Hon’ble High Court pleased to dismiss it. Photocopy of the Order dated 9th May 2006 passed by the Hon’ble High Court is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “A”.

 

2.                                In view of the dismissal order passed by the Hon’ble High Court the Petitioner humbly prays through the instant Application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for the restoration of the aforesaid Writ Petition after recalling the aforesaid Order dated 9th May 2006 for the ends of justice and on the interalia grounds that the following important issues were not considered:

(1)    Hon’ble Supreme Court in it’s Judgment dated 12th September 2001, pronounced by a Bench comprising of Hon’ble CJI, R.C. Lahoti & Doraiswamy Raju JJ., in Appeal (civil) No. 4400 of 2000 along with C.A. No.4405/2000 pronounced by R. C. Lahoti J., reported in the AIR: 2001:SC at pages: 3689 to 3703 clearly held that no Court in India can take judicial notice of any foreign laws. When the aforesaid Writ Petition was dismissed, the Hon’ble High Court pleased to took ‘Strong Judicial Notice of the foreign Laws’.

(2)    That from the observations made in the aforesaid Judgment dated 12th September 2001 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it appears that during the hearing in respect of the prayers therein to declare Section 5(1)(C) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 as ultra vires, the Hon’ble Supreme Court wanted to know some specific prima-facie evidences, from the respective Petitioners in support of their such prayer. In this context this Petitioner humbly submits that in his Writ Petition he tried to fulfill such requirements through adducing evidences and averment with reference to his similar prayers.

(3)    That the Petitioner in the aforesaid Writ Petition just not placed simply issue relating to the Citizenship of the Respondent No. 6 and 7, for the adjudication by the Hon’ble High Court. The Petitioner humbly submits that he placed a very serious question for the adjudication by the Hon’ble High Court. Issue raised by the Petitioner in his Writ Petition further strengthened in the light of the observation made by the Hon’ble High Court. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble High Court, aforesaid serious question can be placed in different way that whether a person under the Constitution of Federal Republic of Germany was a German and still could lay claim to the citizenship of Federal Republic of Germany, while presently he is holding the Citizenship of India, at all can he hold any Constitutional Office in India and can govern to the people of India, under the Citizenship scheme of India and also under the different categories of the Citizenship and under the Citizenship Act, 1955? This aspect was completely missed when Writ Petition was dismissed.

(4)    Such circumstances is developed just because under the Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 all such aspects were not required to be considered as were required in respect of citizenships of India for another category of citizenship. Blindness in the provision of Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 allowed to the authorities to grant Indian citizenship to the Respondents No. 6 and 7 just like Citizenship by birth, which should not have been allowed to the Respondents Nos. 6 and 7.    

(5)    The Petitioner never can file a vexatious litigation.     

 

2.         That in the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment it was held in clear terms that no Court in India can take judicial notice of a foreign Law, including Italian Law. While Hon’ble High Court took the Judicial Notice of the foreign law i. e. Italian Law in this matter, by describing the differences between Indian and Italian Citizenship laws and impact upon the Italian Law from the history of fascist invasion. The Petitioner humbly submits that the aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006 is based in complete conformity with the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment and fulfills the requirements for examination and adjudication of the referred averment and pleading with supporting adducing evidences to prove interalia following material facts in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code and Indian Evidence Act:

1.         That the Respondent No. 6 was born in Italy as an Italian Citizen by Birth;

2.         That when the Respondent No. 7 was born in India his mother was an Italian Citizen, and as such he was not an Indian Citizen by birth, but an Italian Citizen by birth;

3.         That according to the Citizenship Law of Italy and the Constitution of Italy, the Respondents No. 6 and 7 never can renounce their “Right to Citizenship of Italy, as it undoubtedly prevails permanently, irrevocably, unequivocally and forever, and even if they might have renounced their Citizenship of Italy, it is always recoverable at any time on the expiry of one year from the date of their declaration to the effect in the prescribed manner;

4.         That when Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 was enacted preventive provisions were not made in the law, under which and in accordance with the scheme of the Indian Citizenship, no person holding a citizenship of any other country even if gets citizenship of India under dual citizenship, can hold any Constitutional Office in India. In this case the Respondent No. 6 is allowed to hold the Constitutional Office in violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution of India, thus Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 is ultra virus. 

5.         That the allegiance of the Respondents No. 6 and 7 to the Constitution of Italy are acknowledged and undoubtedly prevails permanently, irrevocably, unequivocally and forever. In such a case they ought to be disqualified for being                                                                                                                                                                     chosen as, and for being a member of either House of Parliament under Article 102 of the Constitution of India.

6.         That Section 5(1)(c), read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955, is enacted in violation of the Scheme of Indian Citizenship under which no Indian Citizen having also citizenship of any other country can hold any constitutional office. While the enactment of Section 5(1)(C) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act contrarily opens the doors to hold the Constitutional office in violation of the Constitutional Proprietary.

7.         That Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 is enacted by overriding the provisions of the Article 102 of the Constitution of India granting the Citizenship of India to the Respondent No. 6 and allowed to contest the election for Parliament and opens the doors to hold any Constitutional office in violation of the Constitutional Proprietary.

 

4.         That the Petitioner Humbly submits that he being a much less educated person, representing the vast majority of Indians, and since in any Indian Court he entered after a gap of 10 Years, and the Petitioner never gave any lecture or speak at any place as a speaker, therefore there might be some linguistic communication gap between the Petitioner and the Hon’ble High Court or he might have failed to place the correct direction of the Judgment dated 12th September 2001, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced by a BENCH comprising of Hon’ble CJI, R.C. Lahoti & Doraiswamy Raju JJ., in Appeal (civil) No. 4400 of 2000 along with C.A. No.4405/2000 pronounced by R. C. Lahoti J., reported in the AIR: 2001:SC at pages: 3689 to 3703 in relation to the Constitutional Validity of the Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 2005, and dispute relates to Right to Italian Citizenship of the Respondents No. 6 and 7. 

 

5.         That the Petitioner since his childhood has been engaged in activities of the larger public interests, and he never can file any vexatious litigation. He raised the important issue through aforesaid Writ Petition in consideration of its importance in the national interests and proprietary of the Constitution of India. For this very reason the Petitioner filed the aforesaid Writ Petition just in the national and larger public interests and made averment and pleaded adducing evidences relating to question of the fact, based on the Italian Law, to prove that the Respondents No. 6 and 7 are not illegible to contest election to either House of Parliament, as they were debarred by Article 102 of the Constitution of India, and that Section 5(1)(c ) and 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 overridden upon the aforesaid Constitutional provisions by opening the unconstitutional doors for the Respondent No. 6 to contest the Election  for Parliament.        

 

6.         That petitioner Humbly submits and want to white-wash the impression from the mind of the Hon’ble Court, as the same were appeared on 9th May 2006, in the way of the observations made by Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice, at the time of starting of the hearing of the Writ Petition that “you is more experience than us, but are you aware about 1946’s fascist invasion in the Italy.”. In fact qualification of the Petitioner is just sixth Class and as such he is least knowledgeable about any fascist history. However, being a strictly Jain and coming from the background of the family having the following of strict discipline in confirming to the rich Jain traditions based on 1st Jain Mahabrata i. e. TRUTH, Petitioner has always taken care to adhere to the principles of honesty, sincerity with complete truth and maintain the same in his working. He belongs to that large family in which the great saint Acharya Mahaprganayaji is born. His own two sisters left and renounced their all family relations to become reclusive saints under His Holiness. From his small Village 25 boys and girls left and renounced their all family relations to become recluse saints under His Holiness. The Petitioner has always acted with a sprit for the improvement of the system in the larger interest of the society vis--vis the country. The Petitioner do admit that some people having influence or are powerful and are connected with the people in Top positions and having access to those who move in the corridors of Power, do not like the working of the Petitioner, simply because their vested interests are critically effected.  Hence, it is obvious that they would always try to manipulate the system, with the help of their lobbying competency and connectivity in the hierarchy of power circle. The Petitioner, without having any political or monetary interests, have always tried to raise issues of the Larger Public or national Interests. It was always experienced that in the most of the matters at the initial stage people having the vested interests might have got success for time being, but as a matter of fact that finally the truth gets justice, and the Petitioner gets the feeling of being vindicated as our own Constitution holds full throttle, as loudly as possible, “SATYAMAIV JAIYTEY”. Whenever issues raised by him were adjudicated or intervened by the Judiciary, he got full justice strengthening his confidence in the Temple of Justice, though at times his actions might have gone against large Business Houses in the country. But, during the past 23 years or so he had some different experiences as well, owing to his long severe sufferings, engineered under the pressure of the Politico-Criminal-Nexus. In spite of such constant severe sufferings, he has always tried to maintain his working in the larger public interests, in spite of severe critical situations which he always tries to take as an acknowledgment and treat them as awards in the form of victimization for his honesty. After all one has to pay the price for whatever one wants to hold. Under the background of regular working in the larger public interests, some of the facts relating to his activities in the larger public interest and his sufferings are referred below for the prima-facie satisfaction of the Hon’ble Court that the Petitioner never can or intended to file and move a vexatious litigation:

(1) News Published in the Amrita Bazar Patrika dated 15th November 1994 along with correspondence between the Petitioner and Ld. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Advocate, are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “B”.   

(2) The Land Mafia referred in the aforesaid News was one Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala. Land Mafia, manipulated to get revoked the Building Plans of the Petitioner from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation on the false grounds that the Petitioner has obtained the sanction of the Plans for the buildings by misrepresentations to the Corporation. The Petitioner justified before the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata that he did never took recourse to any false or misleading pleas to obtain the sanction for the building plans from the Corporation and as such the question of any misrepresentation does not arise. However, the Petitioner was fully aware that in fact the aforesaid Land Mafia obtained sanction Plan of Two Multistoried Buildings based on serious misrepresentations, since the front western side portion of the aforesaid two Buildings were built up upon the Railway Land, which he had unlawfully occupied and encroached upon. In this respect, Petitioner lodged a number of complaints before the Railway authorities, CBI, CVC and even met with the then Secretary of the CVC Mr. Bhure Lal. But every exercise of the Petitioner proved to be futile, because of the nexus between the powerful politicians and the aforesaid Land Mafia. Now the Petitioner had started receiving the official information from the different Public Authorities under RTI Act, 2005, including the Railway. After filing of more than 40 Applications and 15 Appeals before the Eastern Railway, now the information available, the Petitioner in a position to say that more or less, approximately, 15859 Square Feet of Railway Land is still under the illegal possession and encroachment of the aforesaid Land Mafia, which was used in construction of the aforesaid Two Buildings and underground garages.

(3) That the information received under RTI ACT also indicates that Income Tax Department acted to protect transactions executed by aforesaid Land Mafia in violations of the Income Tax Act, while in this matter too the then Secretary of the CVC Mr. Bhure Lal did nothing in spite of having passed the order in presence of the Petitioner. These are some of the few matters of the acts and omissions amounting to criminal misfeasance of the aforesaid Land Mafia. The Petitioner is having a list of more than hundred such matters of criminal misconduct of the aforesaid Land Mafia, and trying to get information from each public authority to place the truth before the Judiciary for its adjudication. 

(4) In 1877 when tradition was not developed to call individuals before Parliamentary Committees, the Petitioner was invited in his personal capacity before Parliamentary Public Undertaking Committee on one very important national issue; Photocopy of one of the Letter dated 8th September 1977, from Loksabha Secretariat is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “C”.

(5) In connection with his activities relating to larger Public Interests, he, as a Member of the respective delegations, met the then President Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma, the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Finance Minister and present Prime Minister Dr. Man Mohan Singh. Photocopies of such meetings and one relating to photo of inauguration of his one Book by the then West Bengal Small-scale Minister and presently Member of Parliament and also Member of Polite Bureau of CPI(M) Party Shri Chittabrata Mazumdar are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “D”.     

(6)  On 20th March 1996 in consideration of the Article 51A, 324 and 326 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner filed a Petition before the Election Commission of India, with a concept suggesting thereby to evolve the system to make mandatory to submit an affidavit to supply information by the candidates for State Legislatures and Parliament about the record of the criminal cases against them, which may help to disqualify the candidates to contest elections for the State Legislature Assemblies or Parliament. Thereafter, a Notification was issued by Election Commission by way of the Letter No. 509/Disqln./97-J.S.I. dated 28th August 1997, with direction upon all the Chief Electoral Officers of the States and Union Territories, on the subject, under the caption “Criminalisation of Politics - participation of criminals in the electoral process as candidates –disqualification-on-conviction for offences – effect of appeal and bail – regarding.” The scheme of such Notification was clearly based on the aforesaid concept and ideas of the Petitioner though with limited scope relating to convicted persons, which might have been prepared after due considerations, appropriate discussions, consultations and taking legal opinion. However, after enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005 the Petitioner is now trying to establish linkages between his aforesaid Petition and aforesaid Notification issued by the Election Commission. For the reasons best known to the officials of the Election Commission, they did not allow access to the Petitioner, and therefore, the Petitioner had to move a Complaint under Section 18(1) of the RTA 2005 and in this respect a News item published in the Times of India dated 10th May 2006 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “E”.

(7)       That being a Leader of Aluminium Small Manufacturers Association, he challenged a Writ Petition filed by one of the Monopoly House based on the their unfair demands for Price rise under statutory control based on manipulated figures, by filing a Petition seeking to be made as one of the Respondents. Petitioner’s aforesaid Petition was opposed on behalf of the aforesaid Monopoly and large business House in India by a galaxy of Senior Most Lawyers of the country, like Ld. Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Mr. Dipankar Gupta, and so on. In the aforesaid matter, Ld. Mr. Milon Bannerjee, the then Additional Solicitor General of India and presently Attorney General of India appeared on behalf of the MMTC. The Petition of the Petitioner was supported in eight pages of the order but rejected in last page just on the ground that the Petitioner is not a directly interested party in the matter. In fact the aforesaid Petition was the first of its kind in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, but unrecognized, as till then, the phraseology of PIL was not known to the judicial vocabulary. However, thereafter, Petitioner started sending regular Telegraphic messages contradicting the facts referred by the aforesaid Monopoly producers. Finally the monopoly producer lost its case in the Supreme Court. However, it was sad as was reported to the Petitioner that Ld. Mr. Dipankar Gupta, took this defeat of his client as his personal defeat.

(8)    In the year of 1979 the Petitioner demanding equitable distribution of Aluminium to all the SSI units sat for Fast unto death. He broke his fast only after getting written assurance from the respective Company. Another monopoly Aluminium Producer Indian Aluminium Company Limited (INDAL) at the cost of its own consumers and Shareholders decided for the merger of INDAL with Mahindra & Mahindra Limited. The Petitioner had to challenge its monopolistic trade practice with the MRTP Commission and further challenged its program for merger before Company Law Board and Kolkata High Court and filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this case too Ld. Dipankar Gupta, was Senior Lawyer on behalf of INDAL. On 15th December 1983 the then Chairman of the Company, INDAL, Mr. Keshab Mahindra in a message to all its Shareholders including the Petitioner informed that “At their respective meetings held on 26th September and 4 October, the Shareholders of Mahindra  & Mahindra  Limited and approved the scheme of Amalgamation between the two companies by the requisite majorities. Both companies submitted their petitions to the respective High Courts in Bombay and Calcutta for confirmation of the Scheme. The Central Government’s approval under the MRTP Act is also awaited.” After receipt of the aforesaid communication the Petitioner on 6th January 1984 submitted a Telegraphic Petition before the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. P. N. Bhagwati of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court, for transferring all such matters pending before the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts and prayed for being heard along with his Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8401 of 1982, then pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Within just 40 days, there-from, the Petitioner as a Shareholder of the Indal received another Circular Message dated 16th February 1984 from the Chairman of the Company interalia saying that “I greatly regret to say that Government has been fit to reject our application as not being expedient in the public interest.” Reportedly again this defeat was also seriously taken by Ld. Mr. Dipankar Gupta as his personal defeat. Photocopies of few news cuttings relating to the aforesaid Fast and other News relating to his activities in the larger public interest and in the interests of justice for the survival of SSI Aluminium Industry, are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “F”, for perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

(9) That during the period of the 1980 -1982 including one on 30th November 1981, the petitioner met thrice with the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi in his capacity as the President of Federation of Aluminium Users Association of India and presented Memorandum to ensure equitable distribution at fair prices based on Tariff Commission Reports. After the assurance given by the Prime Minister, the Petitioner withdrew his program for fast unto death at outside Parliament House. The news relating to the assurance given by the then Prime Minister is also annexed with the other news relating to Aluminium. However, thereafter, the then Steel Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, who was supporting the demand of the Aluminium producers, presented one after another proposal for price-rise of the Controlled Aluminium. Each time the Petitioner received informed in time from his own sources about agenda item of the Cabinet, relating to proposal of the Union Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee. Each time the Petitioner reminded the then Prime Minister through Telegraphic message about her assurance and each time proposal was returned without any decision. Finally third time, as it was reported by the source of the Petitioner, that the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi directed Shri Pranab Mukherjee not to present the proposal again. The aforesaid Memorandum also supplied to several other Ministers and Members of the Parliament. On the basis of data referred in the aforesaid Memorandum, the Ministry of Energy, under the then union Energy Minister Mr. Abdul Ganni Lhan Chowdhury resisted price rise of Controlled Aluminium, as it was published in the Economic Times dated 8th December 1981. Now the petitioner is intending to get true facts relating to aforesaid Cabinet Meetings, its agenda items and also relating to other News items under Right to Information Act, 2005.                        

(10)      That one Judicial Officer from the “West Bengal Judicial Services” was indulged in manipulations of the Court Records and the Petitioner filed Petitions under Section 340 Cr. P. C. in the Court of the said Judicial Officer and also filed Revision Petitions before the Hon’ble High Court. Considering serious consequential effects upon his Service, the Judicial Officer hatched a Plot and got arrested the Petitioner on 25th November 1983. After coming back from the arrest the Petitioner lodged a Complaint before Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court as well as and filed an Application under Section 197 of the Cr. P. C. It was the result of the aforesaid complaint of the Petitioner, that gave him a clear understanding about the concept of the fairness of the judiciary under which an immediate enquiry was set up by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta and within six days from the discharge of the Petitioner from the aforesaid Criminal Case, aforesaid Judicial officer reportedly was dismissed from the Judicial Services, probably an incidence for the first time of this kind in the Judicial History of India. Possibly, such dismissal might have also annoyed Ld. Mr. Dipankar Gupta. One News item was published in ‘The Telegraph’ relating to arrest of the Petitioner by forcibly lifting him bodily, under the glaring view of the large number of the litigants, Advocates and others present at that time, at the behest of the then Munsif. Photocopy of the same is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “G”.

(11) That in the year 1983 the Petitioner prepared a Model of New Civil Procedure Code based on his own personal experiences. If the same could have been adopted it would have ensure expeditious justice delivery system ensuring adjudication of each Civil litigation within two years, from the date of its filing. The Petitioner forwarded it to the then Law Minister of India Shri Asok Sen, but found no response even after repeated reminders. Finally on 3rd March 1995 Petitioner presented the same before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India by Registered Post and then referred in Writ (Civil) Petition NO. 151 of the 1996 of the Supreme Court which was filed on 7th February 1996 as a PIL. During the hearing of the Petition the then Hon’ble Chief Justice, Mr. A. M. Ahamdi appreciated the working of the Petitioner when Petitioner pleaded for his detailed suggestions referred to in the Writ Petition for certain amendments in the following Laws:

1.                   Representatives of People Act;

2.                   Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code;

3.                   Official Secrets Act;

4.                   A New Model of Civil Procedure Code;

5.                   Rules under Sub-Clause (c ) Clause (1) of Article 145 of the Constitution of India to define “appropriate proceedings for Civil Reliefs”.                 

(12)                        That after hearing the Petition the then Hon’ble Chief Justice suggested to the Petitioner to forward his all such suggestions to the Law Commission of India even referring His Lordships name for such advise. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court agreed to consider the Rules suggested by the Petitioner under Sub-Clause (c) Clause (1) of Article 145 of the Constitution of India to define “appropriate proceedings for Civil Reliefs” relating to the Public Interest Litigations and to that effect passed the order. Photocopy of certified copy of the aforesaid order was already annexed with the Writ Petition as Annexure “A” to the instant Writ Petition. The aforesaid suggestions referred to in the aforesaid Writ Petition are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “H”.  

(13)                        That in consideration of the aforesaid advice made by His Lordship the Petitioner forwarded his aforesaid Suggestions to the Law Commission of India by letter dated 6th June 1996 posted through Registered Post. That after enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005 the Petitioner wanted to know that what action were taken on his aforesaid Writ Petition in view of the Order dated 29th March 1996 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When Section 89 Amendment was passed in 1999 in respect of Civil Procedure Code, impression was caused in the mind of the Petitioner that only some of his suggestions and that too in parts were adopted in the amendment, which may fail to give proper results, unless his Complete Model of New Civil Procedure Code is not considered in its entirety. If his suggestion would have been accepted then implementation of the aforesaid Amendment might not have met the fate of being suspended by the then Minister of Justice due to opposition from Indian Bar Associations and also owing to the vagueness and contradictions in the wording of the Section 89 Amendment. Under the suggestions made by the Petitioner, no much infrastructure could have been required and neither the existing work of the Advocates would have been affected, since under the mechanism suggested by the Petitioner, some Non-Judicial Court work could have been transferred on equal distribution basis upon all the Advocates, giving them a meaningful real status of the Court Officers. Recently, it came to the notice of the Petitioner that in the “NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, 1998” an article was published under heading: Reform of the Indian Civil Justice System: Limitation and Preservation of the Adversarial Process by Hiram E. Chodosh, Stephen A. Mayo, A.M. Ahmadi & Abhishek M. Singhvi was published. The Petitioner is trying to get information to connect linkage between his suggestions and aforesaid Article, since he has so far not been able to get the requisite information under RTI Act, 2005 from the Supreme Court. In this respect letters received from the Central Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court and typed copy of the letter written to the Law Commission of India are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “I” Collectively.

(14)That the Petitioner being Hon’y General Secretary of the SSI Sector Apex Organisation, he was appointed by the Government of India as a Member of the Finance Sub-Group headed by a Professor from AIIM Ahmedabad and another Sub-Group for Marketing headed by Shri S. S. Singhania. The Petitioner acted just for the benefit of the national interest not at all for any kind of personal interests. From the members of Finance Sub-Group Petitioner had enough scope to get monetary benefits, but he was never prone to get interested to have any benefit out of his activities in the larger public interests. Photocopies of the related pages of the sub-group published by the Government of India showing the names of members of their respective Sub-Groups are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “J”.

(15)In the year of 1996 Lokpal Bill was presented by the then Government and the Petitioner submitted his large number of suggestions to the Parliamentary Standing Committee. In this respect Letter from the Chairman of the aforesaid Committee and few pages of the Report showing the name of the Petitioner and few letters in response to suggestions made by the Petitioner are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “K”.

(16)From the first date of inauguration of Transparency International India Chapter, Petitioner joined in its activities since he is always interested to get involved in activities aimed to curtail the melee of corruption. In this respect Photocopy of the inauguration of Transparency International India Chapter and conference for the combating corruption and promoting transparency and accountability and names of the related people and the Petitioner working as a Member of the Corruption Control Committee are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “L”.

(17)The Petitioner and others are demanding for the past several years for setting up of the Institution of Lokpal. In the year of 1997 the Petitioner under the leadership of Shri S. D. Sharma and two others sat on Fast unto death demanding the presentation of the Lokpal Bill in the Parliament. However, at the evening of the second day of the fast renowned personalities like Shri Kuldip Nayar, Justice Rajinder Sachhar, Shri Soli J. Sorabji and Shri Rajmohan Gandhi called at the Satyagraha camp at the gate of the Lajpat Bhawan, where the fast was being carried, and gave the impression that the then Prime Minister would solve this problem after 15th August 1997, as such the fast was broken by all the Four leading lights. Photocopy of the Bulletin of Lok Sevak Sangh combined with the Newsletter of Transparency International India with reference to the aforesaid Fast is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “M”

(18)That in the year of 1994 this was reported that the Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd., was planning to issue Bonus Shares, under the advise from its Chartered Accountants: M/S. Lodha & Company. When this matter was placed by some one and when the Petitioner studied the Balance Sheet of the Peerless for the preceding four years, he learnt that Peerless is involved in hiding its then liabilities standing around Rs.172/207 crores, besides several other manipulations, including hiding the judgment of the Supreme from the notice of the Kolkata High Court with the malafide intention to get an injunction order against the RBI. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and studies made by the Petitioner and in the larger public interest, the Petitioner served representations dated 28th November 1994 to the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, with copies to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and Hon’ble Chief Justice of Kolkata High Court, Peerless Chairman, M/S. Lodha & Company the Chartered Accountant, and Institute of the Chartered Accountants of India. Thereafter, when the Reserve Bank of India moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the main issue relating to the Service Charges which was raised by the Petitioner in his aforesaid representation addressed to the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, was uphold by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the crime pertaining to the hiding of the liability of Rs.172/207 Crores was found greater by manifolds, when the matter was  scrutinized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the balance sheet for the past 25 years of the Peerless Company. The photocopies of the aforesaid representation and related News cuttings are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “N”.

(19)That the Petitioner is not a Journalist by profession. But, being a spirited person to bring improvement in the system to ensure good governance, he has written about 250 articles which have been published in Hindi Newspapers in India. On an average some 10 Newspapers have published most of his articles. Articles written by the Petitioner were published throughout the country and had a good response supporting his ideas and methods suggested.

(20)In the year 1997, under the direction of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in a PIL, the Railways published advertisements in several Daily Newspapers inviting suggestions from the General people to bring improvement in the Railway Reservation system. The Petitioner submitted his suggestions before the Railway authorities which were duly acknowledged. Thereafter, within few months, The Railway introduced the Tatakal Scheme. The concept that was suggested by the Petitioner is by and large the same that has been incorporated in the Tatakal Scheme. Hence the petitioner wanted to seek the linkage between his suggestion and the Tatakal Scheme. After filing 15 Applications and few Appeals under RTI Act, 2005 the Petitioner is constrained to conclude that the letter written by him containing the suggestion was stolen from the Railway Records, and a fake letter purported to be written by some other person was implanted instead. This is a matter of grave concern that in response to the aforesaid advertisements, as per the information obtained under RTI Act, the Railways received only two letters. One was from a Mumbai based NGO and the other Letter vide reference No. 1-PTA/O/Genl/(L) dated 4th September 1995 was from a Senior Railway Official namely Mr. N. N. Vasudeva, the then Chief Commercial Manager, Northern Railway. By the time, the aforesaid advertisement was published by the Railway Board, the aforesaid Railway Official Mr. N. N. Vasudeva, had been promoted as Additional Member Railway Board (Commercial). More surprising fact is that in spite of the a number of the applications made to the Northern Railway, when the Petitioner could not procure a photocopy of the Aforesaid Letter from the Northern Railway, he pursued one of his friends Mr. Avadhesh Kumar to apply for the requisite information. As per the Railway Rules, Letters pertaining to Policy matters are preserved for 20 years by the Railway itself and thereafter they are forwarded onwards for further preservation. But from the reply received by Mr. Avadhesh Kumar, besides information received by the Petitioner, it indicates that in fact aforesaid letter was never sent from the Northern Railway, rather interpolated simultaneously at the time of the removal of the letter of the Petitioner, as at that point of time Mr. Vasudeva was in-charge of the respective department in the Railway Board. Now an Appeal is pending with the Appellate Authority of the Railways pleading that the aforesaid Suggestion Letter of the Petitioner was removed from the file and stolen by some Railway personnel with the intent to implant the other fake letter in place. Photocopies of the Letter No. 1-PTA/O/Genl/(L) dated 4th September 1995 from Mr Vasudeva and information received by Mr. Avadhesh Kumar are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “O”. 

(21)That in view of the disgusting situation that has come to stay in India, owing to the lack of good governance, the Petitioner after giving a deep thought over the matter, feels that Good Governance is bound to remain a far cry unless the honest people are drawn in the political set-up, through appropriate mechanism in the system for the election of the people’s representatives and regulation of the Political Parties based on reins of powers in the hands of the people against the hands of the individual political leaders. Initially the Petitioner referred all his ideas in Articles and finding a good response from the Readers, is prompted to write a “Model of New Constitution for India”, a copy of which he took care to forward to the National Commission for working of the Constitution of India and subsequently also got the same registered with the Registrar of Copy Rights.                                  

6.       That in consideration of the facts and circumstances as aforesaid in the interest of Justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the Petitioner Humbly prays under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, before the Hon’ble High Court please to;

a)       PASS an ORDER, recalling the order dated 9th May 2006 passed in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006, after directing the Registry of the Hon’ble High Court, for presentation of the records of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 2006 at the time off hearing of this application;

b)       ISSUE notices upon all the Respondents to show cause, why prayers of the Petitioner referred in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006 are not allowed?    

c)       GRANT stay of the operation of the Order dated 9th May 2006 passed in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006 of this Hon’ble Court till disposal of this Petition; and

d)       PASS further order or orders as Hon’ble High Court deem fit and proper for the ends of justice. 

  

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

 

 

New Delhi                                                                      Filed by (MILAP CHORARIA)

Filed 24th May, 2006                                         Petitioner-in-person         

 

 

Truth shall prevail