Make your own free website on Tripod.com

S. C. PETITION
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
Main Petition Para 41-60

41. That after receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 1st February 1985 from the Petitioner Mrs. Ranu Ghosh, IAS, District Magistrate, 24-Parganas, issued fresh orders withdrawing her earlier order. This was conveyed by Md. Nizam when he called again by message dated 22nd February, 1985. Photocopies of both the Message dated 23rd January 1985 and 22nd February 1985 are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-"A-11"

42. That Petitioner filed Civil Suit against Respondent No. 27, considering its implications Respondent No. 27 stopped his malafide activities against the Petitioner for time being, and on 6th February 1986, by a letter to Respondent No.17 with copy to Petitioner admitted that the Criminal Case being Behala P.S. Case No. 54(2)85 filed by him against Petitioner was based on untrue informations. Photocopy of Lawyers Notice dated 13th February 1985 and said Letter dated 6th February 1986 from the Respondent No.27 are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE "A-12" Collectively.

43. That Nexus between the Respondent No. 25, his relations including Mr. Kedar Nath Fatehpuria were developed in or about in the year of 1985 with Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, through Mr. S. K. Todi when fire was caught in a portion of the New (Hogg) Market; being a famous market of the Kolkata since the English regime. Respondent No. 19 was owner of the Market, its the then Mayor was Shri Kamal Basu. Under some unholy arrangements rebuilding Contract for said burnt portion of New (Hogg) Market was staged in such a way, that same could be awarded only to M/S. Martin Burn Limited a Company controlled and managed by Respondent No. 25 and his relations. Under the contract M/S. Martin Burn Limited was allowed to lease out about 97, 000 Square Feet market area after its rebuilding, at their own premium. Premium payable by M/S. Martin Burn Limited to Respondent No. 19 was fixed just Rs.1.08 Crores against the then prevailing premium in the vicinity premium for the said contract should have been much more than of Rs. 15 Crores. This is needless to be mentioned here that the aforesaid contract was not just single one, but on the similar manner, several other contracts were given in respect of various public properties including several belongs to Respondent No. 19. In these matters, said Shrawan Kumar Todi, special friends of Shri Jyoti Basu, adopted main role, whose building Todi Mention was allowed to construct in severe violations of all building Rules and Laws. In or about 1983, during his good relationship with the Petitioner, Mr. Todi admitted that every week one times diner or lunch of Shri Jyoti Basu was fixed at his residence. After the said contract in favour of the M/S. Martin Burn Limited, Respondent No. 25 started to corrupt every officials of the Respondent No. 19. Then he decided to grab various properties through illegal means and methods including blackmailing with the help of the Respondent No. 19 as Petitioner suffered and experienced. Resultantly, Respondent No. 25 become unscrupulous businessmen then Mafia, with the help, support and protections from Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, and his Government Machinery, Shri Kamal Basu, the then Mayor of Respondent No. 19 and Corporation machinery. In view of the experiences suffered by the Petitioner it was become quite clear that entire administration of the Respondent No. 19 started to work as the private office of Respondent No. 25. Whenever Petitioner approached concerned authorities of the State Government including the Police or Respondent No. 19 against any specific atrocity suffered by the Petitioner, or any complaint against any illegal sanction of the Building Plans in favour of the companies of Respondent No. 25, instead of any action, every time magnitude of the atrocities against the Petitioner were enlarged. In respect of the said contract for rebuilding of burnt portion of New (Hogg) Market, News published. Photocopies of some such News are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-"A-13" Collectively.

44. That under Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, functioning of the Respondent No. 19 is covered under Supervision or Control of the State Government, since its highest Office of Municipal Commissioner is appointed by State Government. In the year of 1984-85 Shri Kamal Basu, become Mayor of the Respondent No. 19 on the mercy of Shri Jyoti Basu. As a result Shri Kamal Basu followed all illegal instructions from Shri Jyoti Basu. This fact also appears from expression by way of statement made by Shri Kamal Basu himself and appeared in several Newspapers dated 8th February 1990, in which he says that "as long as Mr. Jyoti Basu was fit and holding the reins of powers, he would remain unchallenged" He further says that "Jyoti Basu may be target, but they cant challenge him". Shri Kamal Basu made such statement, when Shri Biman Bose, one of the Strongest C. P. I. (M) Leaders from the West Bengal, raised dispute relating to aforesaid Market. Photocopy of the said News is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE "A-14"

45. That in or about in March 1986 Petitioner got obtained sanction of two plans each for two buildings each of six storied, from Respondent 19. One plan was in respect of Plot No.205 in the name of Nav Surya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., and another plan was in respect of the properties comprised in R. S. Plot No. 206 in the name of Petitioner, in his capacity as Power of Attorney of Respondent No. 32 and her daughter Dipika Rani Bhattacharyya, because, Sale Deed for the same were not executed, though full payment was made and physical possession of the property was delivered to Petitioner in February 1982. In June1986 Petitioner got vacated the Possession hold by the 7 Tenants under Litigation as per Orders in Execution Proceedings passed with reference to respective decrees against Tenants then residing at R. S. Plot No. 205 as aforesaid.

46. That after February 1986 Respondent No. 25 tried to develop friendship with Petitioner, even some time with fraudulently claiming that he is going to Golf Club, thus dropped Petitioner at his residence, with object to develop contacts with the alleged members of the Petitioners Cooperative Society including Respondent No. 30, who were living in the same building, where then Petitioner was also living. After the entire R. S. Plot No. 205 was get vacated from the respective Tenants, some time in the month of June 1986 Respondent No. 25, 27 and their other associates meets secretly with the other Tenants of the Petitioner including Respondent No. 31 those still residing at R. S. Plot No. 194 and abetted them to kill the Petitioner. A plot was hatched and on 18th July 1986 a severe attempt to murder of the Petitioner was committed, in which Petitioner suffered 42 stab wounds in his body. When Petitioner was in Hospital Respondent No. 25 visits him allegedly to know his health conditions. During such visits he developed contact with father of Respondent No. 30 and instigated him to create pressure for sell of the property. Reportedly under gratification from Respondent No. 25 Shri Bhola Nath Mukherjee, Area Councilor, acted as middlemen to help one of the accused to get bail out from the criminal case of Attempt to murder of the Petitioner. In consideration of such information Petitioner send his Protest Letter dated 5th August 1986 to Shri Bhola Nath Mukherjee, Councilor. Photocopy of the Summary Discharge Certificate from the Hospital is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE "A-15". The respective First Information Report is partly in Bengali script, as such will be referred at the time of hearing of the Petition alongwith English translation.

47. That Respondent No. 25 got created a letter allegedly have been written by the Petitioners Tenants Who ejected from respective Rooms situated at R. S. Plot No. 205 under Execution proceedings, and vacated themselves after recording their admission to do so, before the Ld. Court. In the said created letter Petitioner was described as a dreaded criminal with false allegations that Petitioner removed tenants by force with the help of Pistol etc. After going through the said created letter Petitioner understood that the story referred therein is totally false, frivolous and created by some one with some ulterior motive, as such Petitioner taken no care of it. Respondent No. 25 sent said created Letter by his covering Letter dated 5th August 1986. Photocopy of said letter dated 5th August 1986 of the Respondent No. 25 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE "A-16"

48. That during visit in Hospital Respondent No. 25 developed contacts with Respondent No. 30 and his father as a result after discharged from Hospital Respondent No. 30 and his father met and persuaded Petitioner to sell the property to Respondent No. 25. When Petitioner refused to sell the property, they started to instigate each member of the Cooperative Society of the petitioner. On 6th September 1986 Extra Ordinary General Meeting of the Cooperative Society of the Petitioner was held in which out of the then total 24 Members, 17 Members including Raj Kumar Dhawan and his Son Chandra Sekhar Dhawan were present. Out of rest 7 Members 2 Members telephoned to the Petitioner informing the reasons for not coming in to meeting, while Five the then Members namely Sushil Kumar Bhatter, Respondent No. 30, Ashok Kumar Bhatter (Three brothers from the single joint family), Prabhu Dayal Sureka and Sushil Kumar Tulsian informed the Petitioner that they are interested to see the sale of the property to Respondent No. 25. As such they decisively not attended the said Meeting. In the said meeting, in accordance with the agenda, unanimous decision was taken and property of the Society was divided in three Parts. Northern side proposed Building was allotted in favour of 15 the then Members describing specific allotments of proposed flats and from Southern side proposed building allotted in favour of 8 Members. On 28th October 1986 Allotment Letters in favour of all then existing 23 (except the Petitioner) Members including Respondent No. 30 were forwarded. The said two Building could have been constructed by or on behalf of the respective allottees at the Properties comprised at said R. S. Plot No. 205, in accordance with the sanctioned plans. In accordance with the agenda and decision taken in the said Meeting tenanted part of the property comprised in R. S. Plot No. 194 was transferred in favour of the Petitioner.

49. That under favour from Shri Jyoti Basu the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, and under instructions from Shri Kamal Basu, the then Mayor of Kolkata, Respondent No. 19 started granting illegal sanction of building plans, in favour of the Companies of Respondent No. 25 in serious violation of the Building Rules. For instance earlier Respondent No. 19 granted sanction of building plans for a building of five stories in favour of one Satamita Apartment Association. Subsequently Respondent No. 25 with the help of Respondent No. 27 acquired said property. Thereafter, plans were revised for Three Ten Stories in serious violations Buildings Rules. When matter comes to the notice of the then Mayor-in-council Mr. Rathin Das Sharma, he stopped the construction of first such building at the seventh story and declared before the Press that guilty will be punished. He made such declaration, as he then was not aware about the Nexus between Shri Jyoti Basu and Respondent No. 25. Subsequently Plans for three Buildings was revised for Two Buildings of 11 Stories allowing Respondent No. 25 to exploit extra profit of about Rs.5 Crores from illegal part of such sanction. Since the same period true face of the Respondent No. 25 was exposed to the Petitioner, as such he referred the matter to the Editor of the Statesman. One Correspondent from the Statesman Mr. Alokesh Sen contacted Petitioner. After knew about illegal sanction, said Correspondent taken interview of Shri Kamal Basu, the then Mayor of Respondent No. 19. During the interview Mr. Kamal Basu admitted that originally sanction of three buildings for ten stories at Binoba Bhave Road, were illegal. But at the later stage plan for Two Buildings were legalised, after charging some fine. The statement of Shri Kamal Basu was not consistent with Law and Building Rules. But, said interview was not published. This is presumed that after such interview, Shri Kamal Basu informed the Respondent No. 25 to manage the Newspaper not to publish the interview. Petitioner sent his protest Letter dated 25th November 1988 to Mr. Alokesh Sen, by Registered Post, photocopy of the same is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE- "A-17".

50. That during visit of the Petitioner in Hospital Respondent No. 25 informed that he has one friend in the Telegraph Newspaper and already ask him to publish one story relates to attempt to murder of the Petitioner. However, on those days one regular feature under the heading "CALCUTTA ROUNDUP" was published, in the said Newspaper. On 6th October 1986 one News item was published in the Telegraphs said fixed Feature under heading "CALCUTTA ROUNDUP", with the specific heading for specific News item as "Antisocial terrorise slumdwellers". That said News was come to notice of the Petitioner only on 22nd October 1986. After going through the said News Petitioner send a strong protest Letter to Mr. Aveek Sarkar, Chief Editor of Ananda Bazar Patrika Group of Newspapers (In the letter by mistake Petitioner referred him as Chief Reporter), Mr. M. J. Akbar, the then Editor of the Telegraph, Mr. Pabitra Kumar Mukherjee, the then Printer and Publisher of the Telegraph, and Reporter Mr. Tapash Kumar Chakraborty, with a copy to the Officer-in-Charge, Behala Police Station all by Registered Post, describing the said news as "ULTA CHOR KOTWAL KO DANTEY", and after giving detail facts requested them "So this is my humble request through the Telegraph to the Government, that for justice to all, allegations of the residents with regards to alleged incidents of 18th July 1986 and 29th August 1986 as published in the Telegraph and Behala P. S. Case Nos. 91(12)83, 106(2)84, 4(3)84 and 67(7)86 and my allegations of blackmailing and criminal conspiracy against us should be handed over to C. B. I. for proper investigation and actions, so actual criminals would be punished." After receipt of the said letter for a long period name of respective journalist Mr. Tapash Kumar Chakraborty were disappear from the Telegraph and the said regular feature was withdrawn. Photocopy of News and protest Letter dated 22nd October 1986 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-"A-18" Collectively.

51. That Petitioner was eager to know that who was behind the said created letter forwarded by Respondent No. 25 through his covering letter dated 5th August 1986, as such when aforesaid ejected tenants, visited the Petitioner to know about his health after attempt to murder, Petitioner shown them photocopy of the said created letter. They were not only surprised, but also declared that letter is not sent by them but forged one. As such Petitioner ask Respondent No. 25 about authenticity of the Letter, which was never given. However, considering non-impact of the said created letter, Respondent No. 25 created another false story and conveyed it to the Petitioner. After knew about alleged information with a new story from the Respondent No. 25, strong doubts were cropped up in the mind of the Petitioner about the Role of Respondent No. 25 that he himself might be behind the Plot to severe attempt to murder of the Petitioner. Petitioner also received reports about secret meeting of the Respondent No. 25 with the tenants. As such Petitioner ask the Respondent No. 25 through his letter dated 28th October 1986 to confirm the information in writing. As such Respondent No. 25 confirmed the same by his letter dated 5th November 1986. Photocopies of Letters Dated 28th September 1986 and 5th November 1986 are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE "A-19" Collectively.

52. That as per reports gathered by the Petitioner Shri Jyoti Basu the then Chief Minister of West Bengal instructed Shri Kamal Kumar Basu the then Mayor of the Respondent No. 19 to help Respondent No. 25 and 28. Accordingly, on 14th November 1986, Respondent No. 19 created a fake Municipal Holding Number as 161 Binoba Bhave Road, Ward No.119 Kolkata-700038, in favour of Respondent No. 28. Surprisingly, much before creation of said fake Municipal Holding Respondent No. 25 referred in his both the Letters dated 5th August 1986 and 5th November 1986 about the same, which is clear evidence of his role behind the matter. Photocopy of the Certificate issued by the Respondent No. 19 with regards to said fake Municipal premises No. 161/N Binoba Bhave Road, Ward No. 119 Kolkata is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE "A-20".

53. That on 10th December 1986 Petitioner published an advertisement with reference to his properties comprised in aforesaid Two Khatian and started construction of One Building at R. S. Plot No. 205 and One Building at R. S. Plot No. 206 as per their respective plans.

54. That Membership of 7 Persons namely Raj Kumar Dhawan and his Son Chandra Sekhar Dhawan Sushil Kumar Bhatter, Respondent No. 30, Ashok Kumar Bhatter (Three brothers from the single joint family), Prabhu Dayal Sureka and Sushil Kumar Tulsian were seized by operation of Law against their refusal to accept allotments made in their favour on and from 24th January 1987 automatically. When it was transpired that Mrs. Mira Pandey the then Registrar of Cooperative Societies in garb of alleged Membership of aforesaid 7 persons is trying to blackmail the Petitioner, facts relates to cessession of membership were informed by Letter dated 14th February 1990 to her with copies to all those 7 persons.

55. That fake story conveyed by Letter dated 5th November 1986 by the Respondent No. 25 was open threat to Petitioner that he can be removed from the Properties with the help of the then Commissioner of Kolkata Police Mr. B. K. Basu. As such Petitioner requested Mr. Bikas Kali Basu, I. P. S., by letter dated 26th February 1987 by Registered Post that since his name is dragged in the said story, he should find out the alleged Advocate. To cover-up the matter Office of Kolkata Police instead of enquiring about the alleged Advocate from Respondent No. 25 sends two letters dated 11th March 1987 and 16th April 1987 to the Petitioner, proving that Respondent No. 25 has close connections with very powerful politicians and bureaucrats, including Shri Bikas Kali Basu.

56. That on or before 12th March 1987 Respondent No. 25 through one of his friend paid Rs. 5 Lacs in black money to one Ram Gopal Saraogi of 4, Synagoge Street, Kolkata-700001. Out of such fund said Ram Gopal Saraogi made payment of about Rs.1,25,000/- to Respondent No. 28 against alleged Agreement for sell of alleged property being alleged Municipal Holding No.161/N Binoba Bhave Road, Kolkata-700038.

57. Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid fake and created municipal holding number, and on 19th March 1987 Respondent No. 19 got received alleged complaints from Respondent No. 28 and within one working day completed all alleged proceedings starting from set-up of enquiry, holding of Local Inspection, Local enquiry, preparation of alleged 12 page typed report, submission of Report before the authorities, consideration of Reports by authorities, and decision to revoke the Plans of the Petitioner and to convey its Decision to Local Police, with direction to stop constructional activities of the Petitioner, on false, flimsy and created grounds that he obtained sanctions of the Building Plans under misrepresentations about the ownership. On the same day order of the Respondent No. 19 was conveyed in writing by the Respondent No. 17. Thereafter Petitioner moved before Honble Kolkata High Court, by filing Two Writ Petitions against said Order of Respondent No. 19, which was set-aside by Judgment dated 31st March 1988. In both the Writ Petitions Respondent No. 28 herein was made Respondent No. 6. In the Judgment Honble High Court made it clear that Respondent No. 28 herein can move before appropriate authority (Civil Court) for appropriate injunctions against Petitioner, if he feels that construction is made at his property. But Respondent No. 28 herein not filed any Suit against the Petitioner. Most surprisingly after revocation of sanction plans of the Petitioner on 19th April 1987 said Ram Gopal Saraogi published an advertisement for sell of the Property of the Petitioner claiming it as property of the Respondent No. 28 and started sending alleged intending buyers to visit the property of the Petitioner. After knew about the same Petitioner contacted Ram Gopal Saraogi, who supplied Photocopies of the alleged agreement between him and the Respondent No. 26 and admitted that he is working on behalf of the Respondent No. 25. After knew such fact Petitioner send his protest Letter Dated 7-10th May 1987 to Respondent No. 25 with copies to others by Regd. Post.

58. That under close contacts with Shri Jyoti Basu, and other powerful politicians from West Bengal, Respondent No. 25 established himself so powerful that he removed about 150 families living in Jhugies at Railway Land encroached it. Thereafter, Railway authorities instead of taking appropriate action against such encroachment of valuable public (Railway) properties, Railways illegally and without any public interest or consideration, permitted Respondent No. 25 to make construction of front part of his two buildings namely Mani Towers at Binoba Bhave Road, upon Railway Land situated near Railway Officers Colony at New Alipore (Kolkata) and respective Railway personnel under gratifications further entered in an illegal agreement with him, without any monetary considerations or public interests to develop a Garden for beautification of the said Two Multistoried Buildings at the cost of Railway Revenue and valuable Railway Land, thus encouraged his mafia activities. In respect of encroachment of large Railway Land on 26th July 1987 News were published in Ananda Bazar Patrika. In the said news for wrong doings of Respondent No. 25 entire marwari community was defamed, as such on 28th July 1987 Petitioner send his Letter to Shri S. N. Agarwal, Chief Engineer, Eastern Railway, with reference to said News published in the Ananda Bazaar Patrika dated 26th July 1987 that 6 Bighas of Railway Land is transferred to Respondent No.25. But, since said Mr. S. N. Agarwal was one of the instrumental to said illegal arrangement between the Railway and Respondent No. 25 as such on 19th August 1987 Railway published a false clarification in Ananda Bazaar Patrika. Thereafter Petitioner sends his Letter dated 9th November 1987 to Railway and other authorities of Government of India. The Petitioner received response from the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions vide Memo Letter No. F. No. 29690/3/DOR/PG-87 dated 20th November 1987, but no action was taken in the matter. Thereafter Petitioner submitted his Application dated 3rd June 1992 addressed to the Chairman, Railway Board, for according sanction for criminal misconduct adopted in entering in such illegal agreement by and between the Railway and the Respondent No. 25 and his Companies, which were never replied. In this respect, News was also published in the Bengali Daily Newspaper Ananda Bazaar Patrika dated 26th July 1987. Photocopy of Letter dated 9th November 1987 Memo Letter No. F. No. 29690/3/DOR/PG-87 dated 20th November 1987 are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-"A-21" Collectively. News published on 26th July 1987 and 19th August 1987 are in Bengali script, as such Petitioner craves leave to refer them at the time of hearing of the Petition along with English translation, if necessary.

59. That in consideration of unholy alliances between the Respondent No. 25 and group of Respondent No. 30, on 5th August 1987 Petitioner filed Title Suit No. 348 of 1987 in the Court of 5th Munsif, at Alipore, for declaration that the properties transfer between 25th March 1983 and 31st May 1983 by the nominees of the Petitioner in favour of the Petitioners Cooperative Society were under fiduciary relationship between the Plaintiff and defendants and without any considerations and just for name lenders. In the Suit all the 23 Promoter Members of the Cooperative Society were made defendants and while Petitioner was the Plaintiff. Such transaction was legally valid even under Benami (Prohibition) Transaction Act, 1988.

60. That since inception of the Cooperative Society Respondent No. 30 Six Persons from his Group never shown any interest in working of the Cooperative matters, as they were just concern to get their respective flats from the Petitioner, under agreed terms, and as such since the day of formation of Cooperative Society they did not paid a single paisa to Cooperative Society or to the Petitioner even against written requests. Respondent No. 30 and member of his group Prabhu Dayal Sureka attended Managing Committee meeting of the Cooperative Society only on 4th March 1983 and thereafter they on this or that pretext avoided to attend the meetings of the Managing Committee. They were much less concerned because their financial stake was very very limited and negligible. But, suddenly after attempt to murder of the Petitioner and under offer for good monetary gains from Respondent No. 25 they become interested in alleged working of the Cooperative Society just with single objective to create pressure upon the Petitioner in garb of the enquiry of the working of the Cooperative society, so Petitioner can be made ready to sell the property to Mafia Leader Respondent No. 25. Under the Cooperative Law enquiry of working of any Cooperative Society should have been sought, on compliance of certain Rules and provisions of Law, including limitation point, and with the strength of one third of total members of a Society. But, in the matter of Petitioners Cooperative Society, since Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal was in backing of Respondent No. 30 through Respondent No. 25. As such Cooperation Directorate was ready to violate every Rule and Provision of Law. At that time, total number of Members of the Society were 24 as such one third could have been eight members. However, Respondent No. 30 and his father, taken all efforts, even than could not able to get the support of more than 7 members including said Raj Kumar Dhawan and Chandra Sekhar Dhawan (father son duo), who initially refused to join with the Respondent No. 30 and attended Special General Meeting of the Cooperative Society. To comply the terms of one-third strength they got obtain signature from one Non-Member Dharam Chand Jain and applied for order of enquiry. They filed application under Section 93(2)( c) of West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, for enquiry of the working of the Society, with reference to alleged anomalies. However, Petitioner was intended to cooperate the enquiry, suddenly fact was came to his notice that Respondent No. 30 and his group with intentions to comply the condition of one third support for order of enquiry obtained signature from said Dharam Chand Jain, as such Petitioner send Lawyers Notice dated 20th November 1987 to the Cooperation Directorate.

Enter content here



Enter supporting content here