Make your own free website on

Home | Letter 2 Hon'ble CJI Mr. R. C. Lahoti | PHOTO / TYPED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS | Volume-I (INDEX) | List of Dates | SYNOPSIS | PETIOTIONER/RESPONDENTS | Main Petition Para 1-15 | Main Petition Para 16-40 | Main Petition Para 41-60 | Main Petition Para 61-80 | Main Petition Para 81-100 | Main Petition Para 101-120 | MainPetition Para 121-155 | QUESTIONS OF LAW | Grounds | Prayers | Volume-II (INDEX OF ANNEXURES) | Letter of 9th September 2003 to President of India and Chief Justice of India | Press Statement | ANNEXURE-28-A (Forged Order Sheet) | Application 4 Prosecution 2 Justice Ahamadi | Application 2 Prosecute Registrar SC

P  R  A  Y  E  R S:

In the above premise, it is, prayed that Honble Supreme Court may be pleased to pass appropriate order constituting a Larger Constitutional Bench to decide important substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Part III, as interpretation of the Constitution of India, and to issue writ or writs of certiorari or Mandamus or any other appropriate decree, writ, declaration, direction or order interalia holding that:

        a) The Principle of finality of final order of the Supreme Court  is inconsistent with the never placed before it substantial question of Law concerning to concept of Two separate, independent, untrammeled Supreme Courts: 1) Supreme Authority of Judiciary under Chapter-IV Part V and 2) Supreme Authority over and above all other Constitutional Authority to protect fundamental rights of every citizen under Part III, thus its impact caused perpetuated irremediable injustice to the Petitioner, and as such shall be declared void to the extent of such inconsistency;

               b) The conditions laid down by the Constitutional Bench for filing of Curative Writ Petitions caused perpetuated irremediable injustice to the Petitioner inconsistent with the Rights to Remedy guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, as Constitution nowhere empowered to cause directly or indirectly miscarriage of justice or perpetuated irremediable injustice to the Petitioner and to the extent of such inconsistency shall be declared void;

c) The Rule 5 Under Order XVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 (substituted by G.S.R. 407 (w.e.f. 20-12-1997) (Petitions generally) is void as far as its applicability in respect of the Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is concerned.

d) Item No. 65 under Part -V (Suit Relating to Immovable Property) under the Schedule for the Period of Limitations under section 2(j) and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are completely inconsistent to Part III of the Constitution and under Article 13 of the Constitution should be declared as void;

e) For declaration that the Respondent Nos. 25 to 32 are not entitled to take any advantage from any Order or Judgment which under the laws of the land are not due, but obtained under embracement of respective Judicial Officers, and / or causing interpolations or forgery of the Order Sheets, and / or by adoption of any manipulations or any other criminal acts by criminal means, irrespective of the law of Limitations;

f) For declaration that the Petitioner is entitled to recover damages from the Respondent No. 1 and 9 caused by omissions, or commissions or non-actions against or favours for Respondent Nos. 25 to 32 or their associates, men and agents with reference to respective Memorandums, Representations, Applications, and Complaints filed, submitted, placed before them or any of their respective Ministries or Departments or Officers or sub-ordinates by the Petitioner, including all those referred in the Writ Petition;

g) Direction upon Respondent No. 7 to conduct enquiry with reference to charges leveled in the Writ Petition about political clout acquired by the Respondent No. 25 to 32 and their men and agents and associates, and to further enquire that how far they seriously jeopardises the smooth functioning of the administration and the safety of life and property of Petitioner, and how far acquired substantial financial and muscle powers and how far successfully corrupted the Government machinery at all levels and yielded enough influence to make the task of investigating and prosecuting agencies extremely difficult; how far even the members of the judicial system have not been escaped the embrace of the Mafiadom controlled by the Respondent No. 25 to 32 and submit report before Honble Court for appropriate directions;

h) Direction upon the Respondent No.1 to ensure safety and security of the Petitioner and his family members and property at the cost of the State from the Respondent Nos. 25 to 32 and their men, agents and associates;

i) Upon hearing on merit, if Writ Petition proved as vicious or based on frivolous or contains scandalous matters, Petitioner shall be punished for misuse of rights to remedy;

j) For further or other order or orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice and as may be supplementary to the other orders; and

k) For temporary injunction order with reference to prayers: e); f); and g).


                                                                   Filed by

New Delhi                                                      (MILAP CHORARIA)

Filed   29th October, 2003                                 Petitioner-in-person






In the matter of :-

 Milap Choraria.......PETITIONER


 Union of India and Others.......RESPONDENTS



 I, Milap Choraria, previously known and called as Milap Chand Choraria, son of Late Shri Deep Chand Choraria, aged about 60 years, permanent resident of Post Office at Tamkore, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, and presently correspondence address at A-47, Pal Mohan Plaza, 11/56, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005, do solemnly affirm and state as under:-

1.                              That I am the Petitioner of the above Writ Petition, and I have filed the above Writ Petition in person and competent to swear this affidavit to the same.

2.                              I say that the entire contents of the above Writ Petition are true to my knowledge as regards to the facts referred and are believed to be true and correct.

3.                              That, present petitioner has not filed any other petition in any High Court or Supreme Court on the subject matter of the present matter.

4.                              I say that nothing has been stated in the petition against any Honble Justice of the any Honble Court. 



Verified at New Delhi this the 29th day of October 2003 that the contents of above affidavit are true to my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.


Enter content here

Enter supporting content here