121. That as
stated hereinbefore that Petitioner acquired a small flat at 45, M. A. K. Azad Road, Howrah-711001, under agreement. But,
under the plot hatched by the Respondent No. 25 and his associates including Respondent No. 26 to 32, Petitioner was dispossessed
from the said flat with the help of anti-socials. In this respect Petitioner send a Petition to the Union Home Ministry on
21st
January 1995. After receipt of the said Petition, Union Home Ministry directed to State of West
Bengal, but no security was provided to the Petitioner and his property. In this respect Petition
also send his Letter dated 8th April 1995 to District Magistrate,
Howrah. Photocopy of the Memo Letter 2724-P dated 27th March 1995 from the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, under signature
of Mr. S. P. Boral and said Letter dated 8th April 1995 are
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-56 Collectively.
122.
That in the meantime Dr. Biplab Das Gupta, M. P., make a statement that no specific charges are leveled against Shri
Jyoti Basu. In response to said statement Petitioner send his Letter Dated 19th April 1995 to Shri Harkishan Singh
Surjeet, General Secretary, CPI(M), with copies to various authorities, describing thereby that how Shri Jyoti Basu has misused
his powers and abused his authority for pecuniary advantage of one particular group of unscrupulous businessman being his
Benami Partners. Photocopy of the Letter is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-57.
123.
That in considerations of severe atrocities suffered personally based on severe infringement of fundamental rights
and also considering the root cause behind such situations, Petitioner decided to file Public Interest Litigations, which
ultimately will help to protect his own fundamental Rights. As such on 9th August 1995 Petitioner filed a Writ
Petition based on Vohra Committee Report against the Union of India and the Election Commission of India as Public Interest
Litigation as Writ Petition (Civil) No.559/95 with interalia following prayers: -
i)
ISSUE direction to respondent No. 1 (Union of India) to make appropriate law in compliance of Constitution of India
restricting entry of criminals into the politics by participating in the Election process to become the members of Parliament
or State Legislative Assembly of any State;
ii)
ISSUE direction to respondent
No. 2 (Election Commission of India) to evolve a method to restrict the candidature of a person, facing criminal proceedings
in any Court of Law, for the Membership of Parliament or State Legislative Assemblies and after due approval from this Honble
Court, impose the same for future elections till the respondent No. 1 makes Law; as prayed for under prayer No. i ) hereinabove.
under paragraph 14 of the Writ
Petition Petitioner interalia suggested as under:-
a) No person can contest Election for Parliament or State Assembly, if he is accused in any
criminal proceedings and Police prima-facie had satisfied with the complaint by filing charge sheet, till he not discharged
or acquitted from such criminal case by a Court of Law;
b) No person can contest Election for Parliament or State Assembly, unless he declares all
the properties and business of his family members, before the Law Commission;
c) The Members of Parliament and / or State Legislative Assemblies should be defined as Public
Servants under all criminal laws.
on 29th
August 1995 Petitioner moved the said Writ Petition in person before the Honble Chief Justices Court presided by
A.M.Ahmadi, C.J. as then was, and after hearing the same Honble Court,
dismissed the said Writ Petition with observations that Court cant do anything in such matter. But, after few days later Honble
Chief Justices Court presided by A.M.Ahmadi, C.J. as then he was, admitted another Writ Petition based on self-same Vohra
Committee Report, registered as Civil Writ Petition No.664/95 filed by Mr. Dinesh Trivedy, M. P., and moved by some renowned
Lawyers of the Supreme Court. Admission of such subsequent Writ Petition was not consistent to prevailing principle of the
finality of final order of the Supreme Court. After knowing the fact relates to such admission of another Writ Petitioner,
on 1st December 1995, Petitioner filed another Writ Petition
(Civil) No. D-18372/95 with prayers interalia that in compliance of clause (4) of Article 32 of the Constitution of India
the Jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been seized to dismiss any Writ Petition filed as remedy for enforcement of Fundamental
Rights, without hearing on the merit. On 29th January 1996
said Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-18372/95 was listed for hearing along with the said Civil Writ Petition No. 664/95, Honble
Chief Justices Court presided by A.M.Ahmadi, C.J. as then he was, accepted the argument forwarded by the Petitioner and observed
that they are not dismissing rather disposing off the same by passing judicial order. When the Honble
Court was dictating the said order, one Advocate stood up and wanted to know the fate of Third
Writ Petition filed by his client and moved by him, on the same issue, Honble Court
observed that all other petitions would face the same fate. Then the said Advocate objected it, which was supported by Ld.
Mr. Ram Jeth Malani, Sr. Lawyer, than Honble Court observed that in such event Mr. Chorarias (the Petitioner herein and therein)
Petition would be also heard together with all other Petitions relating to the same matter in issue. But, this subsequent
order was not corroborated with certified copy of the Order of the day. After going through the certified copy of said order,
Petitioner placed the matter in the notice of the Honble Court by filing
another Writ Petition (Civil) D-2595/96 on 12th February 1996.
But, on 11th March 1996 Honble Chief Justices Court dismissed
the Petition. Photocopies of the Orders dated 29th August 1995,
29th January 1996 and 11th
March 1996 are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE - A-58 Collectively.
124. The
Statesman, important English daily from Kolkata published a large story in its two issues 2nd November 1995 and
3rd November 1995 under separate headings CMC gifts 50 cottas to promoter and Promoter pays politicians, Govt.
staff to get project going. This shows that how Respondent No. 25 is dare to violate the Law in his favour. Photocopies of
the aforesaid large News items are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE- A-59 Collectively.
125.
That after going through one of the representation of the Petitioner Learned Mr. Rajiv Dhavan, Sr. Advocate Supreme
Court by his letter dated 4th December 1995 replied that Many thanks for your letter, which combines juristic concern
with the intensity of one having suffered personal atrocity, photocopy of which is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-60.
126.
That on 6th December 1995 the Petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation as Writ Petition (Criminal)
No.3/96, with the interalia following prayers: -
(i) Issue direction to the Respondent No.1 to 8 (therein)
to make their respective Reports and facts lying with their Departments/Sub-ordinates relating to the matters referred under
Annexure D to N, before Honble Court for appropriate direction, declaration or order;
(ii) Issue direction to the Respondent No.6 (therein)
(Central Bureau of Investigation) to investigate in the matter referred under Annexure O and P hereinabove and (to) submit
its Report before Honble Court for appropriate direction
or declaration or order;
(iii) Issue direction to the Respondent No.8 (therein)
(Calcutta Municipal Corporation) not to issue completion certificate with regards to constructions are made at the Premises
No.5/1/1A and 5/1/1B, Cornfield Road, Calcutta,
till final hearing of the Writ Petition.
said Writ Petition, was a Public Interest Litigation, but in the Paragraph
6 under 4th line at page 14 of the Petition, Petitioner submitted interalia that The Petitioner crave leave
to file a separate Writ Petition for appropriate reliefs for himself as such for the brevity he is not mentioning all details
relates to his victimization, but just to support his pleadings he annexed herewith the photo-copies of the following communications
without their annexures,. When on 19th January 1996 Writ Petition was listed before the Honble Court presided
by G. N. Ray J, as then he was, and after hearing of the same G. N. Ray J, observed that this leave appears that the matters
referred in the Writ Petition have been clubbed the matters of the public interest with the matter of infringement of the
fundamental rights of the Petitioner himself, so it is better that petitioner should withdraw his Writ Petition to file a
fresh Writ Petition. In considerations of such observations Petitioner withdrawn his said Writ Petition to file a fresh. Photocopy
of withdrawal of the Petition is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-61.
127.
That on 7th February 1996 Petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (Civil) No.
151/96 with the prayers interalia as follows: -
q MAKE, necessary Rules under
sub-clause (c ) Under Clause (1) Under Article 145 for filing of Writ Petition definable as appropriate proceedings of the
Civil in nature in compliance of clause (1) of Article 32 to ensure that the right to remedy for enforcement of the Fundamental
Rights is guaranteed and to ensure the hearing of the matters relating to violation of Fundamental Rights on merit
q ISSUE, directions to the STATE to make appropriate change and/or amendment
in law within one year as suggested under Schedule A therein
drafts of the amendments or change, or replacements
of the following Laws were referred under Schedule of the Writ Petition: -
a) Representatives of People Act;
b) Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code;
c) Official Secrets Act
d) A New Model of Civil Procedure Code
e) Rules under Sub-Clause (C0 Clause (10 of Article 145
of the Constitution of India to define appropriate proceedings for Civil Reliefs
128. That
on 29th March 1996 upon hearing of the Petition Honble Chief Justices Court presided by A. M. Ahmadi C.J. as then
he was, observed that the Petitioner has done a very good work and advised him to forward his model of new Civil Procedure
Code to the Chairman of the Law Commission of India. Petitioner forwarded the Model of the Civil Procedure Code innovated
by him by Letter dated 6th June 1996 by Registered Post to the Honble Chairman of the Respondent No. 22 the Law
Commission of India. In the said Writ Petition Honble Court passed the order. Photocopy of said order and letter dated 6th June 1996 are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-62 Collectively.
129. That a new Model
of Civil Procedure Code based on his own original thoughts was created and developed by the Petitioner in the year of 1983
and forwarded to the then Law Minister of India Shri Asok Sen, by Registered Post. The Petitioner also forwarded it to A.
M. Ahmadi, CJ, as then he was, by letter dated 3rd March 1995, by Registered Post. This a matter of the fact that recent amendments in Civil Procedure
Code were adopted from the said Model Draft but without recognising his work against universal principle of the Intellectual
Property Rights prevailing worldwide.
130. That on
20th March 1996 the petitioner filed a Petition before Respondent No. 21 Election Commission of India that in the
consideration of Article 324 (1) read with Article 326 of the Constitution Commission invite following information on oath
or affirmation from the intending candidates for such elections to furnish along with nomination papers: -
(a) Whether any Criminal Proceeding in any Court of law is pending? if yes ; please
state:
(i ) Name of the Police Station, within Constituency or outside the Constituency
;
(ii) Number of Crime in respective Police Station?
(iii) Date of Crime according to F.I.R. registered in Police Station ?
(iv) reference of law under which crime is registered ?
(b) Whether, Charge Sheet is filed by the investigating authority in the above
referred Crime Number? If, yes, please state: -
(i)
Name of the Court,
in which charge sheet is filed?
(ii)
Number of the Crime
Registered in the Court?
(iii)
Date of Charge Sheet?
(iv)
Reference of Law
under which Charge Sheet is filed?
(c) The present status of the proceedings?
(d) If the Criminal Proceedings are pending more than one, similar informations
should be provided in respect of each such proceeding.
three Copies of the said Petition were deposited in the
Office of the Election Commission of India, against Acknowledgement. After receipt of the said Petition Respondent No. 21
issued a Notification asking the intending candidates to give certain details with reference to criminal cases, if pending
or disposed off against them, but, in a surprising manner one amongst the then Election Commissioners Mr. G.V.G. Krishnamurthy,
stolen the aforesaid idea from the paragraph 9 of the said Petition and claimed that Notification issued by the Commission
in that respect was based on ideas developed by him. Such situation was developed due to lack of appropriate law making Public
Servants accountable before the law.
131. That in
considerations of the proceedings held in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, on 15th
May 1996 Petitioner filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96. On the same day i.e. 15th May 1996 the Petitioner also filed another Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8305/96 praying
therein interalia to issue Directions upon the Respondent No. 21 interalia to suspend and / or withheld the name of any person
from the Electoral Rolls, if he is an accused in any Criminal Proceeding and Investigating Authority Prima-facie satisfied
about his crime by filing Charge Sheet, till he will be not declared innocent person by a Court of Law, immediately after
such informations about such Criminal Proceedings received by the Commission.
132. That
in considerations of withdrawal of his said earlier Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96 from the Honble Court, and observations
made on 19th January 1996 as aforesaid by G.N.Ray, J. as then his Lordship was, on 21st May 1996 Petitioner
filed a fresh Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 8495/96, with object to get restored his Rights to Remedies against blackmailing
activities run by Respondent No. 25 and his associates, with interalia following prayers: -
a)
ISSUE, directions to the Respondent (therein) Nos. 1 to 8 to take corrective measures in respect of all
illegal Orders, Directions, Notifications, Contracts, Agreements, Sanction or otherwise issued in favour of any of the Company
of the Respondent (therein) No.9 his relations or associates under the signature of any authority of the Respondent (therein)
No.1 to 8 by disobeying the directions of the law for the pecuniary advantage of the Respondent (therein) No.9;
b)
ISSUE, directions to appoint an Court Commissioner to go through all documents relating to all matters
referred in the Writ Petition and submit its report before the Honble Court with the list of the Public Servants who are responsible
for the disobedience of the directions of the Law for appropriate directions by the Honble Court;
133. That as
per the knowledge of the Petitioner withdrawal of earlier Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96 without any contest, was termed
as non-exits, or non-filed. As such, when he filed, fresh Writ Petition (Criminal)
No.D-8495/96, he not mentioned any reference with regards to withdrawal of Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96, nor he made any
false statement. Writ Petition should have been listed before the same Court, where from it was withdrawn. But, said Writ Petition was listed before the Court headed by Dr. A.S.Anand, J. as then his Lordship was.
In Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96 A.M.Ahmadi, C.J., as then he was made sole respondent. On 5th August 1996 Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No.D-8495/96
were dismissed. In fact Writ Petition (Criminal) No.D-8495/96 should have been listed before the same Court wherefrom Writ
Petition was filed earlier were withdrawn by the Petitioner. Photocopies of orders dated 5th
August 1996 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No.D-8495/96 together with Office
Report are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-63 Collectively. In considering of such orders, Petitioner withdrawn
Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96 listed for the day before the same Court.
134.
That in the Newspapers this was appears that CPI(M) is going to observe on 25th
October 1996 as Anti-Corruption Day. In consideration of the such news Petitioner send his protest letter dated
17th October 1996 addressed to Shri Har Kishan Singh Surjeet, CPI(M) General Secretary, with copies to Shri Jyoti
Basu himself, Shri Buddha Dev Bhattacharyya, Shri Biman Bose and Shri Sita Ram yatchury, in their capacity as Polit Bureau
members, all by Regd. Post with reference to criminal misconduct of Shri Jyoti Basu, and Nexus between Shri Jyoti Basu and
Mafiadom.. Photocopies of the letter dated 22nd June 1994 addressed
to Shri Biman Bose and aforesaid Letter dated 17th October 1996
are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE- A-64 collectively
135.
That Petitioner wrote several letters to the Central Vigilance Commission, in respect of Criminal misconduct adopted
by the Income Tax Department and the Railway Authority for the gain and benefit of Respondent No. 25 and his associates. In
response of one such letter dated 21st October 1996 the then Secretary of the Commission Mr. Bhure Lal through
his Private Secretary called the Petitioner by Memo letter Secy/Com/96 dated 6th November 1996. The Petitioner
met with Shri Bhure lal and placed more than 50 documents to him, which he referred in his Letter dated 16th December 1996 sent by Registered post. That after going through the documents
and after satisfying with arguments forwarded by the Petitioner, Mr. Bhure Lal called one of his sub-ordinate Mr. Vishvapavan
Pati, and dictated order in presence of the Petitioner, for appropriate actions. But thereafter in the matter Commission became
mum, for the reasons best known to it. Photocopies of the aforesaid correspondence are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-65
Collectively.
136.
That on 20th February 1997 one advertisement was published in Hindi Dainik Jansata, Kolkata issue, by one
Mr. Samar Nag Managing Director of M/S. Shelter Properties Developers P.Ltd. of BA-2, Sector-I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata in
such a way as if it was published by an Advocate by stating as My clients but name of Advocate was missing from the entire
advertisement. The Name of alleged seller of the property was referred as Respondent No. 28. The detail of the properties
was referred were belonged to Petitioner. At the last of the advertisement one Telephone number was referred for contact,
which was contact number of Respondent No.26. After enquiry it was reported that said Company was Benami and was belongs to
Mr. Chandan Basu, son of Shri Jyoti Basu. Under influence from Shri Jyoti Basu, Company though then having its authorised
capital just of Rs. 50 Lacs, but gets Loans of Rs. 50 Lacs from Life Insurance Corporation and Rs.300 Lacs (Rs.3 Crores) from
Peerless Abasan Finance Ltd., in severe violations of Reserve Bank Guidelines.
137.
That Petitioner time and again requested Union Home Ministry for security. Some time IB and some time Delhi Police
enquire, and given verbal assurance to provide security. But security was never provided. One such Letter was sent on 3rd March 1997, and after receipt the same one Sub-Inspector come and
met with the Petitioner. Petitioner collected Photocopy of 1st page of his own representation, which contained
notings from several officers and in back side one letter from Shri A. N. Sharma, Under Secretary, Home Ministry to Smt. Kanwaljit
Deol, the then Addl. C.P. (S&T) Delhi Police. Before that on 9th August
1996 News was published in the Indian Express under heading I CANT BREAK POLITICS-CRIME NEXUS, SAYS INDRAJIT. Shri
Indrajit was the then Home Mnister of India. Photocopy of
both the documents and said News dated 9th August 1996 are annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-66 collectively.
138.
That this was reported to the Petitioner that Respondent No. 26 through his criminal agent Baman Bose alias Chandan
Bose stolen goods from the Office of the Petitioner. Petitioner sends his First Information Report dated 27th November 1999 by Registered Post to the Respondent No. 17. But, any action
was not taken by the Respondent No. 17. Photocopy of the same is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-67
139.
That the said Mafiadom is still using black money powers against the Petitioner thus the authorities are not taking
appropriate actions to curb the black money. That the members of said Mafiadom under connivance with each other spending black
money in big way against the Petitioner. As per the reports from the local, this was reported to the Petitioner that the said
Mafiadom in recent past entered in an agreement with antisocial to kill the Petitioner. This cannot be proved unless concerned
antisocial were nabbed by the Police. But, another associate of Respondent No. 25 namely Respondent No. 26 conveyed his threats
to Petitioner admitting before one Mina Lal Bhansali, that he has paid Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five Lakhs) to Respondent No.
28 and Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) to one local anti-socials out of total agreed payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees
ten lakhs), fixed for total object to grab the properties of the Petitioner. Shri Mina Lal Bhansali conveyed the said threat
to Petitioner in the first week of February 2001 advised him to compromise with the said Mafiadom. As such Petitioner placed
such information on record by sending the Letter dated 17th February 2001
by Registered Post to Shri Mina Lal Bhansali, with copy to said Respondent No. 26. Photocopy of the said Letter is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-68. However at the same time Petitioner received secrete reports that Respondent No. 26
agreed to Pay Rs.10,00,000/- to anti-socials to get arranged the acquisition of the property even if required by killing the
Petitioner. This is needless to mention here that Respondent No. 26 is the front men of Shri Chandan Basu, son of Shri Jyoti
Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal. In fact on behalf of the Respondent No. 26 several persons time and again approached
to Petitioner including Hukum Chand Choraria, Bijay Singh Choraria son of Late Manik Chand Choraria from Hanut Mal Choraria
family, Chatter Singh Chhajer, and owner of Good luck Curriers.
140.
That under the help, support and protections from Shri Jyoti Basu, State of West Bengal not taken any action against
the criminals in the several matters related to criminal acts by criminal means caused against the Petitioner, including referred
in 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.
141.
That the Petitioner have 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.
Under the prevailing law of the Land forcible entry in any property is illegal and punishable offence. At the same time no
one have any legal or statutory or any Constitutional rights to get any advantage from violation of any law, except one Judgement
pronounced in the year 1932 and subsequently upheld by the British Privy Council that after expiry of 12 years from the date
of forcible occupation one can got the possessory rights. This upholding is inconsistent with the fundamental rights of the
Petitioner under Part III and under duty of a Citizen under Article 51A of the Constitution, as such aforesaid judgment is
needed to be corrected under Article 13 of the Constitution by declaring as void.
142.
That Writ Petition (Civil) No.559/95 Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-18372/95 Writ Petition (Civil) D-2595/96 Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 151/96 Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96. Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8305/96 Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 8495/96 Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No.D-8495 of 1996, were
filed and moved by the Petitioner for enforcement of the fundamental rights, but orders passed in each Writ Petition were
not less than oppressive to judicial conscience, thus perpetuated irremediable injustice for the Petitioner,
similar to observations appears in last two lines of Para 42 of Judgment 414 (2002) 4 SCC, and its reverse impact virtually
converted as the protection of the mafia activities prevailing against the Petitioner. Now Petitioner understood that such
orders were passed under the impact of the principle of finality of final order of the Supreme Court, (Nine Judge Bench
(AIR 1967 SC 1:(1966) 3, SCR 744) Judgment) under which mindset of the Supreme Court gradually but slowly started to shift
from its responsibility as a Guardian, Guarantor and Watchdog-Protector of the individuals rights guaranteed under
Article 32 of the Constitution as were held by Six Judge Bench (AIR:1950,Sc: 124, Kania CJ, Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, Mahajan,
B.K.Mokherjea, And Das JJ.), 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 towards in complete negative directions that the it is a settled position in law that no
judicial order passed by any superior court in judicial proceedings can be said to violate any of the fundamental rights enshrined
in Part III, while such shifting was not consistent with the object, scope, meaning and ambit of Article 32 of the Constitution.
Petitioner is referring this submissions based on his own experiences.
143. That Five
Judge Constitution Bench in its Judgment Dated 10th April 2002 (2002) 4 SCC 419) pronounced a very important Judgment
and at Para 52 and 54 and on principle allowed to file curative Writ Petitions, but imposed a condition to file a Certificate
from Senior Lawyer of the Supreme Court, but compliance of such condition was not possible for the Petitioner, in view of
his experiences from the Advocates including the Respondent No. 23 and 24, and such condition was also not consistent with
Clause (4) of Article 32 of the Constitution, nor was consistent with the original Scheme of Article 32 of the Constitution,
which allowed filing of Writ Petitions without any support from any Advocate. In fact Clause (4) of Article 32 of the Constitution
not empowered for the imposition of any condition, if fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
any one are suspended, as were suspended of the petitioner after the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Writ
Petitions, and when any one move under Article 32 of the Constitution against such suspension. Therefore, condition laid down
by the said Judgment under the impact of the finality of the final order of the Supreme Court is in complete inconsistency
with the provisions provided and rights guaranteed under Article 32 of the Constitution.
144. That in considerations of some very important observations made in
the Judgment dated 10th April 2002 Petitioners hope was restored that he may get justice, and as such on 4th
September 2002 vide filing Diary No. 17454/2002, Petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition, but most surprisingly same was refused
to register as per letter dated 22nd October 2002 from the Supreme Court Registry a Writ Petition under Rule 5
Order XVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 (substituted by G.S.R. 407 (w.e.f. 20-12-1997).
145. That the application of Rule 5 Order XVIII of the Supreme Court
Rules 1966 in respect of Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution is completely beyond the scope, meaning, ambit of
Article 145 (1) ( c) and Article 32 of the Constitution. However, the said Rule is not framed in consistent with the provision
provided under Article 32 and Article 145(1)( c) of the Constitution, which is ample clear that Rules can not be made in negative
direction to refuse the rights to move the Supreme Court, but to be made in affirmative direction to make the provision more
venerably effective for the enforcement of the fundamental rights, and to help the Petitioners to shape their proceedings
compatible as an appropriate proceeding for the enforcement of their rights conferred by Part III and guaranteed under Article
32 of the Constitution, but not to deny such rights.
146. That the application of the said Rule 5 Order XVIII of the Supreme
Court Rules 1966 (substituted by G.S.R. 407 (w.e.f. 20-12-1997) in respect of the Application for the Enforcement of the Fundamental
Rights were not consistent with the Rule 7 and 8 of the Part IV ORDER XXXV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 plain reading
where from it was clear that in case if Court upon preliminary hearing satisfied that there is no cause of action for the
infringement of the fundamental rights or that the Petition is otherwise untenable, shall be dismissed. Rule 5 Order XVIII
of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 (substituted by G.S.R. 407 (w.e.f. 20-12-1997) constitutes duplication of the powers inconsistent
with Article 32 and 145(1)( c) of the Constitution and at all should not be made applicable in respect of the Petition for
enforcement of the fundamental rights as it is unconstitutional and should be declared void. In consideration of such situation,
Petitioner filed another Writ Petition, challenging the Constittutional validity, which was returned under another Rule which
also framed along with the said Rule 5 Order XVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 (substituted by G.S.R. 407 (w.e.f. 20-12-1997).
147. That time and again there is a hue and cry, even by the Legal luminiaries,
and people having juristic concerns, making statements that India needed to make judicial officers accountable. During the
same period framing of such Rules through which assignment of Judicial Powers to the Registrar to refuse to register a Writ
Petition in garb of insufficient cause with regards to Rights to remedies have causes serious concerns. In the Hindustan Times
dated 18th September 1998 News was published that: China punishes
5,000 judges, prosecutors in eight months. The former Prsident of China admitted that the violation in the profession and
neglect of work ethics by some officials in judicial department has posed a threat to social stability. In India people in powers are keenly interested to make judciary to suit them, in the garb of the accountability. While, in
the interest of the fair Judiciary this is more venerable that Judiciary itself should evolve 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. Photocopy of the said Letter dated 22nd October 2002 and said
News are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-69 Collectively.
148. That under
the aforesaid situation the principle of the finality of the final orders of the Supreme Court, which arrived or inferred
under Article 147 of the Constitution cannot made applicable with regards to the provisions provided under Part III of the
Constitution. With reference to Article 147 of the Constitution Petitioner placing some very important facts on record, which
requires verification of its authenticity, interalia as follows: -
1) The provision
Under Article 147 of the Constitution is result of the Indian Independence treaty;
2) The treaty
was result of the Cabinet Mission proposal of 1945;
3) In the treaty
reportedly this was a condition that Constitution of India should be based on the Government of India, 1935;
4) In the treaty
this was a further condition that the administrative system developed by the British Rule based on Laws enacted by the Dominion
Government in India should be maintained for 50 years from
the date of independence;
149. That in
considerations of one circumstantial evidence this can be presumed that conditionality laid down under the Indian Independence
Treaty apparently reflects from Article 147 of the Constitution is framed with such language, and laid down under such conditions
is arrived from the said treaty. Recently, powers of the Hong Kong was transferred to China from British Rule, and as per
News Paper Reports in the Agreement for such transfer of the powers conditions similar to such reported conditions that in
the treaty this was a condition that the administrative system developed by the British Rule based on Laws enacted by the
Dominion Government in India should be maintained for 50 years from the independence is also inserted. If now a days China
can accept such a condition, than there are every possibility to accept such condition by India
in 1945 or 1947.
150. That such
fact also appears true from the Statement made by the maker of the Constitution Dr. B. R. Ambedkar made on 2nd September 1953 in the Rajya Sabha that People
always keep on saying to me, so you are the maker of the Constitution. My answer is I was a hack. What I was asked to, I did
much against my will. I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it. It does not suit anybody. From the aforesaid statement
it can be apprehended that Constitution just in two opposite directions were caused by the aforesaid reported condition. One
direction of the Constitution is creating highest respect for the preamble that makes the people soveireign; directive principle
that highlight their aspirations and fundamental rights declared sacrosanct by the Supreme Court as the basic structure that
gives a sensation of the democracy, while other direction of the Constitution is based on westminister system, which is creation
of follow-up of the colonial system. That in view of the aforesaid provisons provided under Part III and Chapter IV Part V
of the Constitution having impacts in just opposite directions cannot be interpreted under Article 147 of the Constitution.
151. That from
the language of the Article 147 under Chapter IV of the Constitution in respect of the Chapter IV and Chapter V of Part VI
appears Supreme Court is still have allegiance to westminister system, which in due caurse of time since 1858 created in India
as follow-up of the colonial system. The language under Article 147 empowered to Supreme Court to make interpretation is follows:
In this Chapter and in Chapter V of Part VI, references to any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of
this Constitution shall be construed as including references to any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of
the Government of India Act, 1935 (including any enactment of the Government of India Act, 1935 or of any Order in Council
or order made thereunder, or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, or of any order made thereunder. The word this Chapter
denotes to the Union Judiciary and Chapter V of Part VI denotes to High Courts. Therefore within the scope, meaning and ambit
of Article 147 of the Constitution, powers of the Supreme Court to make interpretation does not included the provision under
Part III of the Cosntitution, otherwise alongwith the words this Chapter denotes to the Union Judiciary and Chapter V of Part
VI denotes to High Courts the words Part III should have been included under Article 147 of the Constitution. Besides from
some facts too, this will be clear that Article 147 of the Cosntituion cannot made applicable in respect of the Part III of
the Constitution of India to make interpreation, because subject matter of Part III of the Constitution; The Fundamental Rights
were never exists in the Government of India Act, 1935 nor were subject matter of the orders passed by the British Privy Council,
nor were subject matter of Indian Independence Act, 1947, which was enacted as per agreement between the Indian National Congress
and British Government, based on the proposal of the Cabinet Mission from the British Government.
152. That even
from the aforesaid alleged condition, the alleged terms of the 50 years is applicable even then it is now over, and as such
now dependence over British Privy Council Judgment should be departed, as because intelligentsias of Indian Judicial Officers
particularly Supreme Court Judges are not less than any one from the entire world, and without depending upon the interpretation
of the Government of India Act, 1935, or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, or orders of the British Privy Council, they
can make best interpretations in considerations of the Indian conditions and requirements.
153. That
Shri Jyoti Basu is no longer in the Office of the Chief Minister of the West Bengal, so one can say that situation might have
been changed. As such on 21st July 2003 Petitioner served a Notice upon all State
Respondents including the Union of India and State of West Bengal with object to activate them against Mafiadom.
But, situation is impliedly the same. This will appear from the fact that on 1st August Petitioner approached Shri Buddha Dev Bhattacharya, Chief Minister of West Bengal, and Shri Sourin Roy, Chief Secretary to the Government
of West Bengal, containing therein that as he personally known and very much respect for Shri Sourin Roy, since he was
Director C&SSI, W.B. During Petitioners movement against monopolistic distribution and unfair price policy of the Aluminium
Multinational producers, Late Shri Samarjeet Ghosh, Special Correspondent of the Economic Times, Late Shri Jyotirmoy Basu,
M.P., and one Junior Lawyer to Shri Snehangshu Acharya, who subsequently was appointed as Advocate-General of Tripura, fully
supported and stand behind the Petitioner considering his strong determination for the cause. Even Late Shri Samarjeet Ghosh,
supported the Petitioner up to the level of threats to his services. Petitioner was the 1st Indian, who was invited
before any Parliamentary Committee in his individual capacity, as Late Shri Jyotirmoy Basu, M.P., the then Chairman Parliamentary
Public Undertaking Committee, invited him in 1977 before the Committee. Possibly this fact was also known to West Bengal Minister Shri Kamal Guha. After evidence before the Committee,
Late Shri Jyotirmoy Basu, M.P., was egger to see the Petitioner in Parliament, but Petitioner was never interested in Politics.
Since
the Petitioner fully aware that Shri Buddhadeb Bhattacharya is an honest person and will not support running of any kind of
the Mafiadom. But, as a matter of fact, Petitioner is severe sufferer of Mafiadom of Respondent No. 25, whose Mafiadom was
developed due to connections between Shri Jyoti Basu and Directors of M/S. Martin Burn Limited including Respondent No. 25,
through Mr. S. K. Todi, whose has exploited a lot of West Bengal interests with the help of such connections. Finding no other
remedies, Petitioner have served the Notice (Dated 21st July 2003 upon the Union of India, State of West Bengal,
with their respective Departments, and Kolkata Municipal Corporation against their non-actions, illegal actions or support
to blackmailing activities run by said Mafiadom against the Petitioner including attempt to murder on the Petitioner and attempt
to murder on son of the Petitioner; under police protection. The matter of suffering of atrocity suffered by the Petitioner
having with intensity may not be second in whole of the country. The purpose of the letter is to request them to spare some
valuable time to know personally that how growth and development of Mafiadom was supported, against a person committed to
social cause like the Petitioner. This was admission of the Petitioner before them that if a single statement of the fact
referred in the said Notice, if proved as wrong or untrue, Petitioner shall be liable to loose all of his claims, otherwise,
Petitioner hoped that West Bengal Government will act for justice to the Petitioner, without any influence, under directions
from both of them, by sending Fax Messages to both of them with aforesaid containts with copy by Registered Post. But situation not
changed at all.
154. That in or around 19th September 2003 Petitioner send
a Letter to Honble President of India and Honble Chief Justice of India with regards to his intention to file a fresh Writ
Petition for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. In the said representation Petitioner submitted his undertaking that Upon
hearing on merit, if my Writ Petition proved as vicious or based on frivolous or contains scandalous matters, I must be punished
for misuse of rights to remedy. This Writ Petition is filed with such undertaking. Photocopy of the said Letter without
Annexures is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-70.
155.
That the cause of action with regards to 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 under implied instructions from
Shri Jyoti basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, not taken any 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) against stolen of the goods and finaly dispossessed to the Petitioner from the said flat at 9th
Floor, 45, M. A. K. Azad Road, Howrah with the help of anti-socials, 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 valuable Documents, Books, Papers, and Goods, and lives and liberties of the Petitioner
were made miserable, and till date infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner constantly, and regularly caused
as he is suffering atrocity of severe intensity with dangerous magnitude, as lastly appears from one information given by
one Mina Lal Bhansali, which was referred by the Petitioner in his Letter Dated 17th February 2001 to said Mina
Lal Bhansali with copy to Respondent No. 26 by Registered Post and other reports available to the Petitioner from which 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 kill the Petitioner and to grab the property of the Petitioner under the false and
created claim that property is belonged to Respondent No. 28, and still effective due to non-actions by the State Respondents
to ensure safety and security of the Petitioner and his properties, and cause of actions were caused on each date when embracement
of the judicial officers were caused and suspension of fundamental rights of the Petitioner 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 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 (inserted in 1997), by the Letter dated 22nd
October 2002 by the Supreme Court Registry and that 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 but rendering justice to the Petitioner,
could not become possible, even in considerations of the grave situations suffered by the Petitioner having with intensity
of severe magnitude.
