1. For that the fundamental rights of the Petitioner are completely suspended and put at the stake, under the impact of the Principal of the finality of the final order of the Supreme Court;
2. For that infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner caused under the State sponsored blackmailing activities caused by the Mafiadom, become absolute, when Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioner, causes miscarriage of justice, abuse of the judicial proceedings and orders without jurisdiction or under bias, by not hearing on merit, similar to observations made Per Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri J. (for C.J. and himself, Variava and Patil JJ.) made at Para 23 in Judgment Dated 10th April 2002 388-426 (2002) 4 SCC and further made Per Banerjee, J. at Para 62, 68 and 69. Infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner is completely inconsistent with the entire Constitution and should be enforced, by constituting a Larger Bench to hold that Supreme Courts Two independent, separate and untrammeled from each other responsibilities under Part III and Chapter IV of the Constitution, virtually dividing the Supreme Court in to two separate Supreme Courts, 1) under Chapter IV of the Part V of the Constitution Supreme Court is having Supreme authority of Indian Judiciary; 2) under Article 13 and 32 under Part III of the Constitution Supreme Court having with Supreme responsibility of the guardian, guarantor and watchdog armed with unchallenged, untrammeled, and unrestricted Supreme Powers to protect Indian democracy by protecting the Fundamental Rights of the Individuals. There is no compatibility or match between those two independent, separate and untrammeled responsibilities.
3. For that under human error or otherwise, but for non existence of the measures to prevent miscarriage of justice, abuse of judicial process or orders without jurisdiction or bias, the orders passed by Supreme Court in the matters of the Petitioners caused hands off from its responsibility laid down by Article 32 of the Constitution in respect of infringement of his fundamental rights being just not rarest amongst most rares, but unusual and unprecedented of its own kind from whole of democratic India, and under politics-crime-nexus, thus orders of Supreme Court in the Writ Petition filed and moved by the Petitioner depicts manifest injustice similar to does it, however, mean and imply a closed door even if the order of this Court depicts that the same stands in violation of natural justice adversely and seriously affecting the rights of the parties or the same depicts manifest injustice rendering the order a mockery of justice as were observed in the said Judgment dated 10th April 2002.
4. For that situation as were suffered by the Petitioner were appears to surface in the Judgment Dated 10th April 2002 388-426 (2002) 4 SCC under Para 23 by the observation that These contentions pose the question, whether an order passed by this Court can be corrected under its inherent powers after dismissal of the review petition on the ground that it was passed either without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice or due to unfair procedure giving scope for bias which resulted in abuse of the process of the court or miscarriage of justice to an aggrieved person and at Para 62 that does it, however, mean and imply a closed door even if the order of this Court depicts that the same stands in violation of natural justice adversely and seriously affecting the rights of the parties or the same depicts manifest injustice rendering the order a mockery of justice.
5. Ffor that the principle of finality of final order of the Supreme Court, (Nine Judge Bench (AIR 1967 SC 1:(1966) 3, SCR 744) Judgment) which virtually inferred from Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution is not at all maintainable in respect of orders passed under Article 32 of the Constitution. In respect of the matters of the Petitioner covered under Part III of the Constitution, application of the principle of finality of final order of the Supreme Court, has translated the result not less than oppressive to judicial conscience, thus perpetuated irremediable injustice for the Petitioner thus causes strong protections for the criminal acts by criminal means of the Respondent Nos. 25 to 32, completely inconsistent to the scheme, scope, meaning, ambit of Article 32 of the Cosntituion of India and Powers and responsibility laid upon the Supreme Court.
6. For that the fundamental rights infringed in Public Interest matters or in the matters of the individuals are equally important and cannot and should not be ignored one for another. But, under the impact of principle of finality of final order of the Supreme Court, (Nine Judge Bench (AIR 1967 SC 1:(1966) 3, SCR 744) Judgment) emphasis was shifted towards Public Interest Litigations, at the cost of the fundamental rights of individuals guaranteed under Article 32 of the Constitution as experienced by the Petitioner, by moving the matter in person.
7. For that there is no doubt that separate, independent and untrammeled Principle of finality of final orders of Supreme Court is warranted in respect of Part-III of the Constitution, but simultaneously measures to prevent miscarriage of justice, abuse of judicial process or orders without jurisdictions or bias is equally warranted, to fulfill the objects of the Guarantees provided under Clause (1) and (4) of Article 32 of the Constitution. But, without having such measures application of the non-maintainable principle of the finality of the final order of the Supreme Court being inferred under Chapter IV of the Constitution have caused severe reverse impact against the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner being guaranteed under clause (1) and (4) of Article 32 of the Constitution and virtually translated as protection for criminal acts by criminal means caused by the Respondent Nos. 25 to 32 under their Nexus with Powerful Politicians and bureaucrats, and non action or favours from Union of India and State of West Bengal supported with embracement of large numbers of judicial officers and Advocates has made lives and liberties of the Petitioner and his family members as miserable with severe magnitude. Learned Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, Senior Lawyer of Supreme Court, described the miserable situation of the Petitioner by his Letter dated 4th December 1995 interalia that Many thanks for your letter, which combines juristic concern with the intensity of one having suffered personal atrocity, and opined by the Respondent No. 23 in his letter dated 23rd May 1995 that As far as the merit your matter is concerned I am prima facie satisfied that there is a cause of action at least to file a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for appropriate reliefs. Photocopies of both the Letters are annexed with the Writ Petition and marked as ANNEXURE A-60 and ANNEXURE-55 respectively.
8. For that the Respondent No 25 has caused severe, constant, regular and continuous infringement of fundamental rights of the Petitioner through atrocities with intensity having with severe magnitude, with the help of criminals and the Government machinery. Such rights were embedded when severe misuse of the powers and abuse of the authority by Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, were caused personally under hands in glove with the unscrupulous businessmen-turned-mafia Respondent No. 25 knowing fully well, by all means and method to takes away the livelihoods and lives of the family members and Petitioner himself making it miserable. Respondent No. 25 and his associates, including Respondent No. 26 to 32 have embraces a large number of Judicial Officer and each and every Advocate of the Petitioner and with the help of large number of anti-socials caused such a serious situation which can ensure depriving him from his rights to get justice. The infringement of such rights of the Petitioner is still effective with the same grave situation.
9. For that the Petitioner has suffered 42 stab wounds all over his body inflicted under the plot hatched by Respondent No. 25, and his associates including the Respondent Nos. 27, 28, 29, 31 and 32. The Mafiadom controlled by the respondent No. 25 with the help of the Respondent Nos. 26 to 32 and others now active against the Petitioner was developed when misappropriation of public funds to the tune of about Rs.15 crores was caused, when Shri Kamal Basu, the then Mayor of Respondent No. 19 under influence from Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, arranged contract for rebuilding of the burnt portion of New (Hogg) Market in favour of M/S. Martin Burn Limited, a Company controlled and managed by the Respondent No.25 and his relations. After the said contract Respondent No. 19 adopted one after another ways and means to support blackmailing activities run by the said Mafiadom. Embracement of the Judicial Officers and Advocates of the Petitioner were arranged vehemently with the help of Shri Jyoti Basu and other influential people, to provide legal coverage to blackmailing activities run by said Mafiadom against the Petitioner and protections were provided by the State of West Bengal to the culprits as they were hand in glove with each other to grab the property of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was stabbed with knives several times and his sons legs were crushed by a staged truck accident, caused under Police protection, putting their lives in danger and fundamental rights at a severe stake, with constant threats to lives of his family members and him in Kolkata, as a result he and his entire family had to flea from Kolkata to New Delhi, and still to live under hiding. God knows, whether after going back from the Court premises Petitioner will reach or not at his residence, as agents of the said Mafiadom are equally active in Delhi too.
10. For that Petitioner sought remedies for enforcement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 32 of the Constitution, by his last Writ Petition filed under filing Diary No. 17454 / 2002 on 4th September 2002 which was refused to register as a Writ Petition under Rule 5 Under Order XVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 1966, in complete inconsistent to Clause (4) of Article 32 of the Constitution. In fact Refusal to register as a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner, at the stage of the Registry, in the matter of the Petitioner is not less than death warrant against the Petitioner, as impact of it causes protections of the criminal acts, deeds and misconducts of the Mafia Elements, influential people who actually are the enemies of the society, and responsible for severe attempts to kill the Petitioner and his son.
11. For that the matters of the petitioner, the principle of the finality of final orders of the Supreme Court takes away and abridges the rights to remedy provided under Article 32 of the Constitution of the Petitioner, as equal apprehensions from the observation made in Para 42 of Judgment 10th April 2002 414 (2002) 4 SCC were appears that The concern of this Court for rendering justice in a cause is not less important than the principle of finality of its judgment.
12. For that from the Judgment (2002) 4 SCC dated 10th April 2002 Supreme Court virtually admitted by way of observations that the principle of the finality of the final order of the Supreme Court may permits miscarriage of justice, abuse of judicial proceedings or orders without jurisdictions or under bias whereas under the scope, meaning, ambit, object and scheme of Article 32 of the Constitution there are no rooms for miscarriage of justice, abuse of judicial proceedings or orders without jurisdictions or under bias, if the same depicts as infringement of the fundamental rights;
13. For that with complete inconsistency with the provision of the Article 32 of the Constitution, the principle of the finality of the final orders of the Supreme Court, virtually have changed the scope, meaning, ambit, object and scheme of the Article 32 of the Constitution, particularly in respect of the matters pertained to the Petitioner, thus causes severe damage to the Petitioners rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution;
14. For that the assessment of the Vohra Committee that An organised crime Syndicate/Mafia generally commences and that In the bigger cities, the main source of income relates to real estate- forcibly occupying lands/buildings, procuring such properties at cheap rates by forcing out the existing occupants/tenants etc. Over time, the money power thus acquired is used for building up contacts with bureaucrats and politicians and expansion of activities with impunity. The money power is used to develop a network of muscle-power which is also used by politicians during elections. and that CBI has reported that all over India crime Syndicates have become a law unto themselves. Even in the smaller towns and rural areas, muscle-men have become the order of the day. Hired assassins have become a part of these organisations. The nexus between the criminal gangs, police, bureaucracy and politicians has come out clearly in various parts of the country were competing with the atrocities suffered by the Petitioner. In fact much before, the Vohra Committee submitted its Report, the Petitioner realized that black money powers of the Mafiadom controlled by the Respondent No. 25 and his associates including Respondent Nos. 26 to 32 is main source for building up the contacts with the powerful politicians including Shri Jyoti Basu, and others, which ultimately caused infringement of fundamental right of the Petitioner. In such a considerations, starting from 1987 petitioner forwarded his numberless representations, complaints, applications before each and every authority, requesting thereby to check the huge black money powers of the said Mafiadom even submitting detail facts relates to some of the transactions based on the payment of huge black-money, but Government of India rather acted to protect black money powers of the said Mafiadom, thus encouraged his blackmailing activities causing severe infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner.
15. For that the Petitioner is sufferer of the black money powers of the Respondent No. 25 and his associates including Respondent No. 26 to 32 as he referred to respective authorities about respective transactions including executed through two of the Companies of the Respondent No. 25 based on violation of the Income tax Act, and this fact was now established, as per the principle settled by the Judgment dated 13th March 2001 in the Civil Appeal No. 5426 of 1997 by S.P.Bharucha, J, as His lordship then was and N. Santosh Hegde and Y. K. Sabarwal, JJ. If the respective authority could have acted in accordance with the law the properties referred in the aforesaid transactions should have been vested with the Government of India for violation of Section 269UC of Income Tax Act, or otherwise the matter should have been the subject matter of the said Judgment, as several other similar matters relates to various properties from the country were part of the said Judgment. After the said Judgment on 11th July 2001, Petitioner sent a representation to the Union of India, asking thereby to take appropriate steps in the matter, in accordance with the said Judgment. But, Government of India takes no action in the matter. In fact by not taking appropriate action against black money powers the Union of India permitted the Respondent No. 25 and his associates including the Respondent Nos. 26 to 32 to use their black money powers to cause severe infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner;
16. For that the Mafiadom controlled by the Respondent No. 25 to 32 have tried their best level to embraces a large number of Judicial Officers to effect the Administration of Justice, which time-to-time Petitioner put on the record submitting Letter Petitions to the Honble Chief justice of India and / or Honble Chief justice of Calcutta High Court with prayers to ensure enforcement of his Fundamental Rights;
17. For that the Five Judge Constitution Bench in its Judgment Dated 10th April 2002 (2002) 4 SCC 419) moved to pronounce a very important Judgment and at Para 52 and 54 allowed to file curative Writ Petitions, but by mixing the provisions provided under Chapter IV of the Constitution of India meant for the restricted and specific purposes, with the independent untrammeled and separate Supreme powers provisions provided under Part III of the Constitution of India, as such condition to file a Certificate from Senior Lawyer of the Supreme Court, was imposed in complete inconsistent with Clause (4) of Article 32 of the Constitution,
18. For that under the fundamental rights of Justice the Respondent Nos. 1 to 20 are responsible for the damages causes by their respective omission or commission or non-actions or ill-actions against or favours for Respondent Nos. 25 to 32 and others in respect of the respective Memorandums, Complaints, applications and representations time to time placed before them by the Petitioner.
19. For that application of Rule 5 Order XVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 in 1997 in respect of the Proceedings under Part III of the Constitution Supreme Court vehemently hands off from its responsibility as were admitted by Six Judge Constitution Bench (AIR:1950, SC: 124, Kania CJ, Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, Mahajan, B.K.Mokherjea, And Das JJ.), which hold interalia that: The Supreme Court is thus constituted the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights, and it cannot, consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringement of such rights. and opened the doors to compromise with the Core Principles of the jurisprudence that the Justice must above all and that No one is the above law.
20. For that the Petitioner has one landed property at 92/1/1A, Jai Bibi Road, within the area of the Bally Police Station within the District of Howrah (West Bengal). Since long time Petitioner was suffering the atrocities caused by Mafiadom controlled by the Respondent No. 25 and his associates, as such Petitioner could not able to look after his aforesaid property for more than last 15 years. It is reported that property have been forcibly occupied by some one. Since the Petitioner is not in a position to move freely, under the severe threats from said Mafiadom, Petitioner cannot take appropriate actions in the matter. In recent period people have been encouraged to acquire the possession of the valuable properties by force, as were also admitted by the Vohra Committee in its Report, damaging the basic objects of the fundamental rights. Therefore, item No. 65 as Description of Suit under Part V (Suit Relating to Immovable Property) under the Schedule for the Period of Limitations as the prescribed period under section 2(j) and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is completely inconsistent to Part III of the Constitution and should be declared as void.
21. For that under the fundamental rights of Justice any order or Judgment which under the law is not due but obtained by the Respondent Nos. 25 to 32 under their embracement with any Judicial Officer or otherwise, are never become legally valid, irrespective of whatever provisions were under the Law of Limitation.
22. For that as per news published in the Hindustan Times dated 18th September 1998 China punishes 5,000 judges, prosecutors in eight months, as because the violation in the profession and neglect of work ethics by some officials in judicial department has posed a threat to social stability. Similarly in India people in powers are keenly interested to see the judiciary, to suit their own interest, in the garb of the accountability. While, in the interest of the fair Judiciary this is more venerable that Judiciary itself should evolved some concrete mechanism to check miscarriage of justice, abuse of the judicial proceedings and orders without jurisdiction or under bias, at each and every levels. Most important part of such thing is that China is not following British Privy Council Judgments, as Indian Judiciary depending inmost of the important Judgments upon the British Privy Council Judgments, which giving impressions that still Indian Judiciary having allegiance to the British Privy Council, while Indian Judges, having full competency compatible from the Judges of any other country to hold Judgments in consideration of the Indian requirement and environments.
23. For that the infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner were started in the year of 1982 when State Respondents discriminate the Petitioner under political influence and not taken appropriate actions in the several matters including Behala Police Station (South 24-Parganas District, under West Bengal Police) Case Nos. 38(7)83 dated 14th July 1983, 91(12)83 dated 29th December 1983, 106(2)84 dated 29th February 1984, 4(3)84 dated 2nd March 1984, 54(2)85 dated 19th February 1985, 67(7)86 dated 18th July 1986, Sec. VZ. C/No. 30 dated 22nd February 1991 of the New Alipore Police Station (under Kolkata Police), First Information Report dated 18th October 1994 and dated 21st January 1995 both lodged by Registered Post to Golabari Police Station (Howrah District- under West Bengal Police), First Information Report dated 27th November 1999 Lodged by Registered Post to Behala Police Station (South 24-Parganas District, under West Bengal Police) against demolition of the boundrywall and stolen of the Goods, and lives and liberties of the Petitioner were made miserable, and till date infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner were constantly and regularly caused as he is suffering atrocity of severe intensity with dangerous magnitude, as lastly appears on 17th February 2001 from one information, and simultaneous reports it appears that the Respondent No. 26 (being member of Mafiadom controlled by the Respondent No. 25 and front men of Shri Chandan Basu) had spent about Rs.8,00,000/- to get killed the Petitioner and to grab the property of the Petitioner under false and created claim that property is belonged to Respondent No. 28, and infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Clause (1) and (4) under Article 32 were caused on various dates when orders in his Writ Petitions were passed including on 29th August 1995, 29th January 1996, 11th March 1996, 29th March 1996, and 5th August 1996 and cause of action for this Petition is also inferred from the observations made at Para 42 of the Judgment dated 10th April 2002 SCC (2002) 4 SCC that The concern of this Court for rendering justice in a cause is not less important than the principle of the finality of its judgments. We are faced with competing principles in considerations of the grave situations suffered by the Petitioner having with intensity of severe magnitude and were caused when Writ Petition (Civil) filed vide filing Diary No. 17454/2002 was refused to received to its Registration as a Writ Petition Under Order XVIII Rule 5 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (substituted by G.S.R. 407 (w.e.f. 20-12-1997) (Petitions generally) which under Article 145 (1)(c ) of the Constitution cannot be made applicable in respect of Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.