MILAP CHORARIA
B-5/52, Sector-7,
Rohini,
New Delhi-110 085
Dated 27th July 2004
Registered with A/D
To,
Hon’ble
Mr. R. C. Lahoti,
Chief
Justice of India,
Supreme
Court of India,
New
Delhi-110001
Sub:
Application under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for according
sanction to prosecute the personnel holding the Office of the Registrar (Judicial) and Joint Registrar of Section 1-B of the
Supreme Court at the material time for disobeying the law, with intent to cause un-repairable severe injury to my fundamental
rights, under influence or otherwise.
Hon’ble
Lordship,
1. That under Article 146 clause (1) of the Constitution
all officers or servants of the Supreme Court are appointed by the Chief Justice of India or such other Judge or officer of
the Court as he may directs. Therefore, Hon’ble Chief Justice of India is competent authority to receive and take appropriate
decision on this application.
2. That Supreme Court is not empowered to delegate its Judicial Powers to any one,
exclusively exercisable by a Division Bench under Rule 1 Order VII and / or Rule 8 under Order XXXV of the Supreme Court Rules,
1966 in respect of application for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights.
3 That from the entire Supreme Court Rules, 1966,
neither Registrar or even not a single Judge (except in certain specific cases and vacation Judge, where Judicial order not
necessary) have been delegated to exercise judicial powers of a Court, exclusively exercisable by a Division Bench under Rule
1 of Order VII of the Supreme Court. It can be proved from the various provisions from the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which
are referred in detail as follows:
(1) For instance under
Rule 1 of Part I, Order VI, of the Supreme Court Rules 1966, the powers of the Court have been assigned to exercise by the
Supreme Court Officers, namely Registrar in the following matters, related to administrative in nature:
(1)
Applications for discovery and inspection.
(2)
Applications for delivery of interrogatories.
(3)
Applications for substituted service or for dispensing with service of notice of the appeal on any of the respondents
to the appeal under rule 10 of Order XV.
(4)
Applications for time to plead, for production of documents, and generally relating to the conduct of cause, appeal
under rule 10 of Order XV.
(5)
Applications for leave to take documents out of the custody of the court.
(6)
Questions arising in connection with the payment of court fees.
(7)
Applications by third party parties for return of the documents.
(8)
Applications for grant of copies of records to third parties.
(9)
Applications for the issue of certified regarding any excess court fee paid under a mistake.
(10)
Applications for requisitioning records from the custody of any court or other authority.
(11)
Applications for condoning delay in paying deficit court fees or delay in representation.
(12)
Applications for condonation of delay in filing Statement of case:
PROVIDED that where the Registrar does not think fit to excuse
the delay, he shall refer the application to the court for orders.
(13) Applications for appointment and
for approval of translator or interpreter.
(14) Applications for withdrawal of appeal by an appellant prior
to his lodging the petition of appeal.
(15) Applications for substitution, except where the substitution
would involve setting aside an abetment.
(16) Applications for production of documents outside court premises.
(17) Applications for change or discharge of advocate on record.
(18) Applications to withdraw suits.
(19) Applications for payment into court.
(20) Applications for payment out of
court of money or security or interest or dividend on securities.
(21) Applications for extending returnable
dates of warrants.
(22) Applications to appoint or discharge
a next friend or guardian of a minor or a person of sound mind and direct amendment of the record thereon.
(23) Applications for refund of security
deposit or part thereof or for payment out of security deposit.
(24) (Omitted)
(25) Applications for consolidation of appeals and writ petitions
for the purposes of hearing, and preparation of record.
(26) Applications for directions regarding preparation of records.
(27) Applications for exemption from filling of certified copies
of judgments, decrees, orders, certificates or orders granting certificate.
from the aforesaid list this will be ample clear that wherever possibility
or scope of requirements of any orders relating to work other than administrative in nature, Registrar was directed to refer
the matter to Court, as appears under item no. (12) and item no. (15).
(2) Under
Rule 2 of Part I, Order VI, of the Supreme Court Rules 1966, under which the powers of the Court in relation to the matters
may be exercised by a Single Judge in Chambers, where purely judicial orders are not required relating to matters namely:
(1)
Applications by advocate on record for leave to withdraw.
(2)
Applications for leave to compromise or discontinue an appeal (where
permission was granted to use as an indigent person).
(3)
Applications for striking out or adding party or for intervention in a suit, appeal or other proceeding.
(4)
Applications for separate trials of causes of action.
(5)
Applications for separate trials to avoid embarrassment.
(6)
Rejection of plaint.
(7)
Applications for setting down for judgment in default of written statement.
(8)
Applications for better statement of claim or defence.
(9)
Applications for particulars.
(10) Applications for striking out any
matter in a pleading.
(11) Applications for amendment of pleading
and for enlargement of time to amend any pleading.
(12) Applications for tax bills returned
by the Taxing Officer.
(13) Applications for review of taxation.
(14) Applications for enlargement or
abridgment of time except where the time is fixed by the court and except applications for condonation of delay in filing
Special Leave Petitions.
(15) Applications for issue of commissions.
(16) (Omitted)
(17) Applications for assignment of security
Bonds.
(18) Questions arising in taxation referred
by Taxing Officer.
(19) Applications for orders against
clients for payment of costs.
(20) Applications for taxation and delivery
of bill of costs and for delivery by an advocate of documents and papers.
(21) Applications for registration of
advocates as advocates on records.
(22) Applications for leave to proceed
as an indigent person
(23) Applications for grant of bail where
the petitioner is confined in jail.
(24) Applications for stay of execution
of a sentence or order in criminal proceedings.
(25) Applications by accused person in
custody for being produced before the court at the hearing of appeal.
(26) Consent applications in interlocutory
matters.
(27) Applications by accused persons
for engagements of advocate under rule 25 of Order Xxi.
(28) Fixing the remuneration of a guardian.
(29) (Omitted).
(30)
(Omitted).
(3) Under Order VII
Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 even single Judge is empowered in relations to matters of very urgent in nature or
where scope of order in violation of principle of non-arbitrariness is not exists, otherwise this categorically stated that
“Subject to the other provisions of these rules every cause, appeal or matter shall be heard by a Bench consisting of
not less than two Judges nominated by the Chief Justice”. The single Judge is empowered in relations to matters are
described as follows:
(1)
Special Leave Petition arising out of the decisions or orders of a Single Judge of a High Court or of a Member of Tribunal
sitting singly.
(2)
Bail applications.
(3)
Applications for substitution other than those falling under rule 1(15) of Order VI.
(4)
Summons for non-prosecution.
(5)
Applications for exemption from paying court fees.
(6)
Applications for extension of time for paying court fees or for furnishing undertaking, bank guarantee or security.
(7) Applications
for disposal of an appeal in terms of a compromise petition.
(8)
Applications for withdrawal of special leave petitions, appeals or writ petition.
(4) That under Order
III Rule 2, the Chief Justice of India may assign and Registrar may, with the approval of the Chief Justice, delegate to a
Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar, any function required by these rules to be exercised by the Registrar. From the aforesaid
provisions the assignments of the powers would be relating to “functions”, not relating with the judicial powers.
Under Part 1 Order 1 Rule 2 sub-rule (1)(g) “court” and “this
court” means the Supreme Court of India. From the aforesaid definition Supreme Court Officers are not defined as “court”
or “this court”. Article 145 of the Constitution provides under Clause (1) that “subject to the provisions
of any law made by Parliament the Supreme Court may from time to time, with the approval of the President, make rules for
regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court including” under sub-clause (c) “make rules as to
the proceedings in the Court for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III”. From the aforesaid provision
this is ample clear that Article 145(1)(c) of the Constitution empowered to make “rules for regulating generally the
practice and procedure of the “Court” and proceedings in the “Court”, which means, Judicial Powers
of the “court” cannot be delegated to Supreme Court Officers namely Registrar.
4. That Registrar (Judicial)
of Supreme Court under instigation from the Assistant/Joint Registrar (Section 1-B) and / or private respondents named in
Writ Petitions filed by me for protection of my fundamental rights, considered himself having armed with Judicial Powers under
Rule 1 to 10 including Rule 5 of Order XVIII under Rule 11 under Part IV ORDER XXXV substituted by GSR 407 w. e. f. 20.12.1997,
under Supreme Court Rules 1966, and disobeyed his official duties to injure my rights for the benefit and gain of some one
else, illegally and in violation of the Constitution equated himself with a Court, refused to receive Writ Petitions filed
by me for enforcement of fundamental rights, deciding its admissibility, as facts stated hereinafter.
(1) That on 4th September
2002 I have I filed a Writ Petition (Civil) vide filing Diary No. 17454/2002, seeking protection of my fundamental rights
severally infringed under Nexus between Politics-Bureaucratic-Nexus and embracement of large number of Judicial Officers and
renowned Advocates. Since the matter referred in this Writ Petition is also referred in a subsequent Petition, copy of which
will be annexed with this application at the appropriate paragraph. Therefore, I crave leave to file copy of Writ Petition
(Civil) No. D-17454/2002, if so desired or I may be so directed to file.
(2) That
I filed the said Writ Petition seeking protection of my fundamental rights infringed under Politics-Crime-Nexus, which was
refused to receive by the Registrar (Judicial) under instigation from the then Assistant Registrar (Section 1-B) (who was
promoted subsequently as Joint Registrar (Section 1-B), in violation of Rule 8 Order XXXV and Rule 1 of Order VII of the Supreme
Court, by misusing the provision of Rule 5 of Order XVIII under Supreme Court Rules, 1966, and accordingly I was informed
by Memo letter No. Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 17454/2002 dated
22.10.2002 by Registered Post under signature of (Section Officer) I-B, “that Ld. Registrar (J) on 12.10.2002 when was
pleased to lodge the said Writ Petition Under Order XVIII, Rule 5 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 as the said Petition does not
disclose any reasonable cause to the received for its registration” . In violation
of Constitutional provision Rule 5 of Order XVIII was applied by the Registrar (Judicial) to cause severe injury to my Fundamental
Rights, including rights to remedy or justice, and by disobeying his official duty, thus committed a crime punishable under
Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Photocopy of the said Memo
letter No. Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 17454/2002 dated 22.10.2002 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure “A”.
(3)
hat after such a situation on 2nd November 2002 I filed Civil Writ Petition No. D-3098 of 2002 against the
Office of the Registrar General of the Supreme Court of India by Registered Post. It was returned by the Office of the Respondent
No. 2 through Memo Letter No. D-3098/2002/X dated 24th December 2002 with reply interalia that “no action
can be taken on it as it is not in accordance with the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules (Extract enclosed)”, which
referred the proviso under Rule 6(1) under ORDER X (DOCUMENTS), under the Supreme Court Rules 1966, as the Petitioner not
presented the Petition in-person on the filing counter. From the Rule XXXV of Supreme Court Rules 1966 (specifically meant
for Petitions Under Article 32 of the Constitution) Registrar returned it by disobeying his official duty, committed offence
punishable Under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. Photocopy of Memo Letter No. D-3098/2002/X dated 24th December
2002 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “B” .
(4) That On 29th October
2003, I filed another Writ Petition (Civil) under Diary No. 22474 of 2003, containing facts more elaborately relating to severely
infringed of my fundamental rights under politics-bureaucratic-crime-Nexus and embracement of large number of Judicial Officers
and renowned Advocates. A copy of the Petition part of Volume I of the said Writ Petition, containing facts, Question of Law,
Grounds and Prayers is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “VOLUME –I’, separately.
(5) That On 10th November
2003 dealing Officer / Clerk of the Section 1-B of the Supreme Court informed that Petition is of the Criminal by nature,
as such required a Letter from me to that effect. On the very same day I clarified by a Letter that the Writ Petition is of
the Civil in nature. Copy of the said Letter is annexed herewith Volume-I and marked
as Annexure “C”.
(6)
Thereafter, matter was sent, by Section 1-B to Section X, where it was came to my notice that a long list of alleged
errors of total item Nos. 22 were referred in my matter. In which one issue was referred that V.I. P.’s were made Party
Respondents. I was asked for each such Respondent to deposit Court Fee of Rs.10/-. When I asked to Assistant Registrar of
Section X to name the V. I. P., Party Respondents? Then Assistant Registrar of Section-X, returned the file to Section 1-B,
where the said alleged error was corrected by directing me just to deposit deficit stamp of Rs.10/- as shortage of Process
fee.
(7) However, finally I received Memo Letter Memo Letter
D. No. 5610/2003/X dated 29th November 2003, in which 22 alleged errors were referred. Out of 22 errors I corrected
mostly as far as possible for me, and referred the reasons for not correction for the rest by Letter dated 15th December 2003.
For instance under Item No. 22, I was directed to Change the Writ Petition as PIL, which I replied that “Since the Writ
Petition is with regards to infringement of my personal fundamental rights as such I cannot add the word PIL”. Photocopies
of the said Memo Letter D. No. 5610/2003/X dated 29th November 2003, my Letter dated 15th December 2003 are annexed herewith
under Volume-I and marked as Annexure “D” and “E” respectively.
(8) That
after 15th December 2003, I was expecting that matter, may come up for preliminary hearing at any time thereafter.
When I enquired from Section X, I was informed that file was sent back to Section 1-B for the final examination of the corrections
made by me. As per my knowledge, thereafter file never come back to Section-X where it was withhold for the reasons best known
to Joint Registrar of Section 1-B. However, on 23rd February 2004 I sent a Press Statement to about 500 Newspapers,
TVChannels, Media person from India and abroad, posted the same at the various Boards of discussions E-groups. Possibly under
the impact of the same and after withholding the matter for more than four months in the garb of “Under Scrutiny”
letter No. D. No. 5610/2003/X dated 19th April 2004 was sent by Section-X which was delivered me on 24th
April 2004, directing me thereby “that the prayers, which have already disposed of / decided by this Hon’ble Court
are required to be deleted” and “You are therefore, requested to amend the Writ Petition accordingly within a
week from receipt of this letter failing which action contemplated under the rule will be initiated”, from which criminal
conspiracy to get refused to receive my said Writ Petition, was appearing clearly.
(9) Thereafter,
on 15th June 2004 I received Memo letter No. D. No. 5610/003/X dated 7th June 2004 from the Assistant
Registrar (Judl) informing thereby that “The Writ Petition above mentioned filed you was placed before the Ld. Registrar
(J-I) on 26.5.2004, when he was pleased to decline the same as it does not disclose any reasonable cause upon which it can
be received for listing before the Hon’ble Court under Order XVIII Rule 5 of S. C. R. 1966.” Such finding was
completely false, flimsy and knowingly taken by the Registrar (Judicial) by disobeying his official duties, in violation of
the Constitutional provisions, to protect the vested interests of Mafia elements, having close Nexus with Powerful politicians-bureaucrats-Advocates.
Photocopy of the Memo letter No. D. No. 5610/003/X dated 7th June 2004 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure
“F”.
5. That aforesaid unconstitutional
decisions were taken by the Registrar (Judicial) in aforesaid Two Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-17454/2002 and No. D-22474/2003
disobeying the law with clear intention to injure me by depriving me from my fundamental rights to remedy or justice and taken
under influence to protect the interests of Mafia working under nexus with Powerful politician of India, and support from
several renowned Advocates.
6. That conduct of the Joint
Registrar of Section 1-B and Registrar (Judicial) were knowingly disobeying the law with intention to cause severe un-repairable
injury to my fundamental rights to protect the illegal rights of the respective Mafia, and such conduct have causes serious
damages to efficacy of and faith upon the judiciary, and was a crime punishable under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code,
and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7. Therefore,
I humbly submit that sanction should be accorded to prosecute the Registrar (Judicial) and Joint Registrar (Section 1-B) of
the Supreme Court having holds respective offices at the material time, whose name were not disclosed by the Supreme Court
Registry, as such could not be mentioned here. For this purpose, I am sending copies of this application to Registrar (Judicial) and Joint Registrar (Section 1-B) with request that if he were holds such
Offices, the copies of this application they may kindly forward to the personnel, who holds such offices at the material time
of respective orders were passed by the Registrar(Judicial).
Your
Hon’ours faithfully
A Law
Abiding Citizen of India,
(MILAP
CHORARIA)
