101. That Petitioner lodged complaints Under Advocates Act, one jointly against learned Mr. Gouri Shankar Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Kishan Lal Bagaria, Solicitors, and another against Mr. Tapash Kumar Sarkar, Advocate (being the Lawyer Respondent No. 32 and her daughter), before the Bar Council of West Bengal. No reply or objections were filed by those Advocates, nor were served upon the Petitioner, nor any date was fixed to hear the aforesaid matters. But, in gross abuse of the judicial process, and against the important principle of the Jurisprudence that "Justice must be above all", but under severe bias and in highly irregular manner on 19^th September 1992 both the complaints were disposed off by the Bar Council of West Bengal, in serious violations of the said core principle just by passing Resolutions, to save the skin of the brethren Advocates. As such the Petitioner filed Appeals before the Bar Council of India, which might have been disposed off by the Bar Council of India in the back of the Petitioner. Photocopy of one of the said Letter dated 19^th September 1992 from Bar Council of West Bengal is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE "A-42".

102. That Respondent No. 25 directly himself or through some one made false representations before Lawyers of Petitioner including Learned Mr. M. R. Chowdhury, Advocate, 12, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata-700001, Smt. Maity Ghosh, Advocate, 12/1, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata-700001, Ld. Mr. C. K. Jain, Solicitors, 7C, Kiran Shankar Roy Road, Kolkata-700001, Ld. Mr. Bhaskar Sen, Bar-at-law, 147, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700026, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Ghosh, Bar-at-law, 25, Harish Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700020, Ld. Mr. Bankim Chandra Dutta, Advocate, and several others. Resultantly, Petitioner was compelled to send them Letter by Registered Post to clarify his position. In the year of 1992 Respondent No. 25 purchased one property from Client(s) of Mr. M. R. Choudhury, Advocate, and paid huge black money to his Vendors, at the residence of Shri M. R. Choudhury, Advocate, who was a Long Time Advocate of the Petitioner. After execution of the said transaction under abetment from Respondent No. 25 Mr. Choudhury through one Mina Lal Bhansali suggested that Petitioner either to settle with Respondent No. 25 otherwise Respondent No. 25 will spoil his life.. In response Petitioner send Letter Dated 21^st November 1992 by Registered Post to Shri M. R. Choudhury, Advocate, which he replied by his letter dated 3^rd December 1992, suggesting thereby to Petitioner to move the matter in United Nations Organisation. Photocopies of the Letters dated 20^th June 1991 to Mrs. Maity Ghosh, Advocate, 5^th July 1991 to Mr. N. K. Khaitan, Advocate, 21^st January 1992 to Mr. Gouri Shankar Gupta, Advocate and 21^st November 1992 to Shri M. R. Choudhury, Advocate, and his reply dated 3^rd December 1992 are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE "A-43" respectively.

103. That in the Title Suit No. 348 of 1987 of the Ld. Court of the 5^th Munsif, Alipore, out of 23 individual defendants 12 defendants admitted the claim of the Petitioner, although through compromise Petitions. Out of rest 11 defendants ten not appears in the Suit. The only defendant being the Respondent No. 30 being the main agent of the Respondent No. 25 appeared and opposed the Suit. Petitioner filed a petition that the execution of the Sale deeds were executed under fiduciary relationship between the Plaintiff and individual defendants and even under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, are legally valid. Therefore, this issue should be decided first. But, under the embracement from the Mafiadom, Ld. Presiding Officer of the Ld. Court of Munsif Court on 23/29^th May 1992 dismissed the Suit. A copy of the Order is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-"44".

104. That during the same period it appears that Shri Chandan Basu son of Shri Jyoti Basu the then Chief Minister of West Bengal was also involved against Petitioner either to help the said Mafiadom of Respondent No. 25 or for some other reasons. One Jai Chand Lal Sethia was running a large scale gambling Club, at British India Street, Kolkata (Within the Local Area of Kolkata Police Head Quarter) and suddenly approached to the Petitioner to negotiate the matter. On the opposite response from the Petitioner to his desirous, Jai Chand Lal Sethia threatened to Petitioner with dire consequences. Petitioner placed the same on record by his Letter dated 26^th October 1992 by Registered Post to him. After receipt of the letter Mr. Sethia send one Mr. Manik Chand Choraria, to convey Petitioner that he is working on behalf of Shri Chandan Basu. After such information Petitioner send his letter dated 30^th October 1992 to Shri Chandan Basu, with copies to Shri Jyoti Basu, Jai Chand Lal Sethia, Manik Chand Choraria and several others by Registered Post. Petitioner received reply dared 24^th December 1992 from Shri Jyoti Basu, under signature of his Confidential Assistant. After few days later Bahu Bazar Bomb Blast incident took place and reportedly on enquiries from Central Agencies this was came to the notice of Shri Jyoti Basu that said Jai Chand Lal Sethia was the partner of said Rashid Miyan and that Rashid Miyan was main agent in Kolkata for Dawood Ibrahim. This way it might be appears to have looks like a chain link between Dawood Ibrahim and Chndan Basu, as such to save his skin, Jai Chand Lal Sethia along with several persons, were arrested for alleged involvement in gambling. Photocopies of aforesaid Letters dated 26^th October, 1992, 30^th October 1992, 24^th December 1992 and news items relates to arrest of Shri Jai Chand Lal Sethia and others are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE "A-45" collectively.

105. The Government of India through its order No.S/7937/SS(ISP)/93 dated 9^th July 93 had established a Committee, namely known and called as "Vohra Committee" comprised then Union Home Secretary Shri N.N. Vohra, as Chairman of the Committee. The other members of the Committee were the then Revenue Secretary, Director Intelligence Bureau, Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Secretary, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), and Joint Secretary of Home Ministry "to take stock of all available information about the activities of Crime Syndicates / Mafia organisations which had developed links with and were being protected by Government functionaries and political personalities". Vohra Committee in its Report admitted that safeguarding of the fundamental, statutory and legal rights of the citizen under politics-crime-nexus are at a serious stake, as were experienced by the Petitioner personally with severe magnitude. Petitioner craves leave to refer Vohra Committee Report available to him at the time of hearing. That similar to Vohra Committee Report Petitioner suffered atrocities of severe magnitude, with intensity as the Respondent No. 25 to 32 have acquired considerable political clout seriously jeopardising the smooth functioning of the administration and the safety of life and property of Petitioner, and acquired substantial financial and muscle power and social respectability and have successfully corrupted the Government machinery at all levels and yield enough influence to make the task of investigating and prosecuting agencies extremely difficult; even the members of the judicial system have not escaped the embrace of the Mafiadom controlled by the Respondent No. 25 and his associates including Respondent Nos. 25 to 32. Virtually they are running a parallel Government, pushing the State apparatus into irrelevance, in respect of the matters pertained to the Petitioner. The safety and security of the lives of the family members and Petitioner himself and his property under political Nexus put under complete stake. Even Shri George Fernandes, the then M.P. (Presently Defence Minister of India) written to Shri S. B. Chavan, the then Home Minister of India by his Letter dated 6^th April 1992 requested him to looked into the matter. Shri S. B. Chavan, by Letter dated 17^th April 1992 replied but without any result. Photocopies of Letter from Shri George Fernandes and reply from Shri S. B. Chavan are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE "A-46" Collectively.

106. That Petitioner at the request of Mr. S. K. Todi once acted without any personal interest for the political gain of Shri Jyoti Basu and his party. Since, this was understood that he is victim of misuse of the powers and abuse of the authority by Shri Jyoti Basu, he reminded such past favour caused by him by Letter dated 6^th January 1993 sent by Registered post to Shri Jyoti Basu with copies to others, but same make no difference. Photocopy of the said Letter is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-"A-47".

107. That considering involvement of Dr. Manash Bhuinya, M. L. A., in connivance for the Attempt to murder of Petitioners son, Petitioner send him a Letter dated 5^th April 1993 by Registered Post asking him that "can he explain with regards to his changed attitude and behave and reasons for postponement of the program to raise the issue in West Bengal Assembly on 22^nd February 1991".

108. That this is needless to refer that under the close Nexus with Shri Jyoti Basu, and other powerful politicians from West Bengal, the Respondent No. 25 established himself so powerful, that once Petitioner negotiated with one Promoter for development of his properties. Said Promoter claimed that he had very good relations with Shri Hashim Abdul Halim, the Speaker of West Bengal Legislative Assembly, and if he agreed then he will enter in agreement for development of the project. This was pre-condition of the Petitioner before the said Promoter that he never can ask the petitioner for any compromise with the said Mafiadom, which was agreed upon by the said Promoter. But, with the most surprisingly, when the Petitioner met with Shri Hashim Abdul Halim, immediately Shri Halim offered that he will mediate the matter and arranged settlement in the matter calling Mr. Fatehpuria, the relation of Respondent No. 25. However, petitioner refused immediately the aforesaid offer as such meeting with Shri Hashim Abdul Halim was closed. Petitioner sent his protest letter dated 24^th July 1993 by Registered Post to Shri Hashim Abdul Halim, the Speaker of West Bengal Legislative Assembly. Photocopy of the said Letter is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE "A-48".

109. That Petitioner received Letter dated 23/30-04-1993 from Dy. Assessor-Collector, South Suburban Unit Respondent No. 19. In response to said Letter on 3^rd June 1993 Petitioner met with Shri Dilip Ghosal, Dy. Assessor-Collector, South Suburban Unit Respondent No. 19. At is office, where he says that Municipal Holding No. 161, Binoba Bhave Road, was created in favour of Respondent No. 28, under the order of Shri Jyoti Basu, as such this information was placed on record for confirmation by Letter dated 3^rd June 1993 to said Mr. Dilip Ghosal, with copy to Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister. This letter was replied by Mr. Dilip Ghosal, by Letter dated 12^th June 1993, but most surprisingly this letter was posted on 14^th June 1993 from Writers Building (the Head Quarter of Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister, and 10 K. M. from the Office of Mr. Dilip Ghosal. From the language of the letter several questions cropped up, as such Petitioner by his Letter dated 1^st July 1993 sent by Registered Post to Mr. Dilip Ghosal requested to clear some doubt about his conduct, which was never replied giving clear doubts that the said Letter was prepared by some senior Officer from the office of Chief Minister to cover-up the aforesaid admission made by Mr. Dilip Ghosal on 3^rd June 1993. Photocopies of the aforesaid Letters dated 23/30^th April 1993, 3^rd June 1993, 12^th June 1993, one envelop showing date of Registration of Letter from Writers Building Post Office on 14^th June 1993 and 1^st July 1993 are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-"A-49" Collectively

110. That in considerations of all such grave situation prevailed against the Petitioner with the help and support from Shri Jyoti Basu, Petitioner wrote Letter dated 5^th April 1993 to one Duli Chand Surana, Letter dated 20^th April 1993 to Shri Jyoti Basu himself in which Petitioner made clear charges against Shri Jyoti Basu for misuse of the powers and abuse of the authority for the gain and benefit of and pecuniary advantage of Mafia Leader Respondent No. 25 and thereafter submitted an Application dated 8^th July 1993 to Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma, the then President of India, for according sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 197 of Criminal Procedure Code for prosecution of Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal. Photocopy of the said Letter dated 5^th April 1993, Letter dated 20^th April 1993 to Shri Jyoti Basu Application dated 8^th July 1993, without annexures therewith, are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-"A-50" Collectively.

111. That after knew about the said application dated 8^th July 1993 plan was hatched to convey fresh threat to the Petitioner. As such one message dated 9^th August 1993 was sent from the Officer-in-charge, Murder Section Kolkata Police, in which alive son of the Petitioner was referred as dead. As such Petitioner send his protest Letter dated 11^th August 1993 to the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, which was never replied. At the same time Respondent No.25 put under trouble in Contempt proceeding initiated by him, as stated hereinafter. Thereafter Respondent No.26 men and agents of Respondent No. 25 and Shri Chandan Basu, with the help of the dreaded criminals and anti-socials including one Umed Kumar Choraria and under Police protection, demolished Boundrywalls at the property of Petitioner. Photocopies of the said message from Officer-in-charge, Murder Section Kolkata Police and Letter from the Petitioner are ANNEXURE-"51" Collectively.

112. That in response to Application dated 8^th July 1993 to President of India Petitioner Received Memo Letter No. 406/3/93-ADV-IV dated 1^st November 1993 under the signature of one Mr. Parag Prakash, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension. Photocopy of the said Memo Letter is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE "A-52". The said Letter No. 406/3/93-ADV-IV dated 1^st November 1993 was replied with confirmation as asked for. But, thereafter, till today said application dated 8^th July 1993 is not disposed off.

113. That to make bias the Shyamal Kumar Sen J., as then he was, of the Kolkata High Court against the Petitioner, Respondent No. 25 knowing fully made false allegation against Petitioner that he is a habitual criminal and convicted in a Criminal Case, referring the matter in which Mr. Jayanta Kumar Das Gupta the then presiding Officer of the Learned Court 5^th Munsif, Alipore, lost his Judicial services. As such, Petitioner filed Application Under Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code, before Honble Kolkata High Court interalia citing the evidences of such false statement as well as said false Affidavit of Service, as were prepared on 13^th September 1991. When Honble High Court passed an order for hearing of the both the matters (Contempt Proceedings against the Petitioner and Application Under Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code filed by the Petitioner) analogously, Respondent No. 25 and his Solicitors find themselves in real trouble, as such on the one hand they managed that hearing of the said matter should not take place at any cost, and on the other hand they taken help from dreaded criminal miscreants with the help of newly uprising Mafia Respondent No. 26, being the front man of Shri Chandan Basu, son of Shri Jyoti Basu, and with Police support to create such a situation which will compel the Petitioner to flea from Kolkata, if wants to survive at all. Since, the Respondent No. 25 through his said Solicitors managed the Court staff, thus with utter surprise said Contempt proceeding was started going down in the cause list of respective Bench of Honble High Court, than started listed as Last matter of the List. As the Last matter of the List prevailed for several days and finally gone out of the List. At the same time Office Building and Boundary wall at the properties of the Petitioner was broken with police protection by the men of the Respondent No. 25 to 32 and stolen goods and Books valued of Rs. few Lakhs. From such developments, this was become ample clear to the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 25 adopted all ways and means simultaneously with a concrete plan to grab the properties of the Petitioner after putting him in Jail by implicating in false Contempt proceedings, with the help of the respective Advocates. At the same time about fifty antisocial with the Police support were posted and still some of them are appears out side the property of the Petitioner, with intention to kill the Petitioner, if he came to his site. As a result, Petitioner was left not any other choice, but to left from the running Court cases, and flees from Kolkata along with his family Members to survive.

114. That some time in June 1994 this was reported to the Petitioner that in the year of 1990 Mr. Kedar Nath Fatehpuria, along with Mr. C. K. Jain, Solicitors was sitting in the Chamber of Ld. Mr.Bhasker Sen, Bar-at-Law and seeing the Petitioner, conveyed him that "this man (Petitioner) is not of such kind of person who can be allowed to sit in your chamber". Resultantly Ld. Mr.Bhasker Sen, Bar-at-Law Bar-at-law initially agreed to move a Writ Petition against Cooperation Directorate, refused to move the same. After knew about the same Petitioner send his Letter dated 24^th June 1994 to Mr. Kedar Nath Fatehpuria to disclose what he found against the Petitioner. Photocopy of the said Letter is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-"A-53".

115. That in considerations of aforesaid suffering being the rarest amongst rares infringement of the fundamental rights, petitioner decided to file a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. For this purpose, after a long initiation he met with Senior Lawyer of the Supreme Court and Ex-Solicitor General of India learned. Mr. A. D. Giri, Sinior Lawyer at his residence at Allahabad. After going through the facts learned Mr. A. D. Giri, Senior Lawyer was satisfied and suggested the Petitioner to appoint one Delhi based Senior Lawyer like Respondent No. 23. With this purpose, learned Mr. A. D. Giri Senior Lawyer personally came to Delhi and discusses the issue in detail in Kanishka Hotel, with Respondent No. 23 and thereafter Respondent No. 23 studied the merits of the matter and decided to prepare a letter to be sent by the petitioner to the Governor of West Bengal, before filing such Writ Petition. Accordingly under his supervision, his one of the Junior Advocate prepared draft of such representations to be sent, and was sent to the Governor of West Bengal, by the Petitioner as per advise of the Respondent No. 23, which he forwarded by his Letter dated 06^th December 1993. Petitioner sent his representation to the Governor of West Bengal on 16^th December 1993. Thereafter as per advise from Respondent No. 23 after elapse of about three months from the said letter to the Governor, Petitioner tried to meet with Respondent No. 23, but under most surprisingly every time he declined to meet with the Petitioner for the reasons best known to him, though every time Petitioner came to meet him from Kolkata. But, after several attempts, one day Respondent No. 23 appeared on telephone and said that he had ask the Respondent No. 24 to prepare a Writ Petition in that effect. But, when the Petitioner met with the Respondent No. 24 at his Mayur Vihar Chamber, he said that though he convinced that on the merit matter of the Petitioner is very strong, but now-a-days Supreme Court declined to accept any Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Such development shows that Respondent No. 23 instead of direct refusal, arranged refusal through the Respondent No. 24, not to file such Writ Petition, thus become a party himself in such infringement.

116. That some time in October 1994 Mr. Kedar Nath Fatehpuria used anti-socials to get vacate a large property namely called as Alexandra Buildings, a prime property, situated at Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Kolkata, hurling Bombs upon the residents. Even after repeated calls Police from Bhawanipore Police Station not turned up. One resident known to Mr. Arun Bhagat, the then Director of Central Bureau of Investigation in Delhi. He conveyed the terrible situation. Mr. Arun Bhagat telephoned Mr. Manish Gupta, the then Home Secretary about the same. Thereafter under his instructions the Lal Bazar H. Q. of Kolkata Police arrested Mr. Fatehpuria, but in the midnight one W. B. Minister Matish Ray personally come to Bhawanipore Police Station and arranged his Bail from a Criminal Case registered under Non-Bail-able sections. Subsequently Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station was made scapegoat for illegal release of Mr. Fatehpuria. The story was stated by the person, who himself telephoned to Mr. Arun Bhagat, and he also informed that subsequently Mr. Manish Gupta started working for settlement between Mr. Fatehpuria and the residents. In considerations of such informations Petitioner send his protest letter to Mr. Manish Gupta, the then Home Secretary of West Bengal. News about arrest of Mr. Fatehpuria and reaching of Minister at Police Station were published in Newspaper. In this respect News were published on 4^th and 5^th October 1994, in Bengali Daily Newspapers.

117. That one Senior Correspondence of the English Daily from Kolkata namely Amrita Bazaar Patrika shown courage to publish a News with heading "BASU ACCUSED OF MISAPPROPRIATION", with reference to such measurable situation of severe magnitude which compelled the Petitioner along with his family members to flea from Calcutta, in its issue dated 15^th November 1994. The matter was also published in Bengali weekly from State of West Bengal namely Coalfield Times dated 15^th- 21^st May 1995. The owner of the Newspaper Amrita Bazaar Patrika was compelled to terminate the said Senior Journalist within 24 hours from the said News was published. In fact Petitioner acquired a small flat at 9^th Floor, at 45, Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad Road, Howrah-711001, under agreement. But, immediately after the said News published on 15^th November 1994 in or around goods worth Rs.67,960/- were stolen by one anti-social Pawan Kumar Jaiswal from the said flat, and 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 such anti-socials, who acted as agent of Respondent No.25 and 26. In this respect First Information Report dated 21^st January 1995 was forwarded to Officer-in-Charge, Golabari Police Station, against goods stolen, and letter of the same date was also forwarded to the then Union Home Secretary Shri K. Padmanabhaiyya, and letter dated 24^th January 1995 to the Home Secretary, West Bengal, against threats to Lives and liberties of Petitioner. Photocopy of the News published on 15^th November 1994 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE "A-54" Collectively. The News published in Bengali weekly Coalfield Times dated 15^th- 21^st May 1995 is in Bengali script, and Petitioner craves leave to refer the same at the time of hearing of the Petition, along with English translation.

118. That some time in April 1995 Ms. Mamta Banerjee, M. P. given the matter of Petitioner to Special Correspondent of the Bengali Daily Newspaper Baratman. Said Reporter spent 4 days to study the matter and after preparation of News send it to his Newspaper at Kolkata to publish the story. But when Petitioner was expecting the News relates to his matter, interviews of Mr. Vijoy Fatehpuria was published on 7^th May 1995 in the Baratman. Said Special Correspondent informed the Petitioner that his Office conveyed him not to deal with the matter further. However, he got published the matter in Bengali weekly Coalfield Times 15-21 May 1995 with reference to atrocities suffered by the Petitioner and his family members. News was published with Photo of Shri Jyoti Basu and his son Chandan Basu. The interview of Mr. Bijoy Fatehpuria published on 7^th May 1995 is in Bengali script, and Petitioner craves leave to refer the same at the time of hearing of the Petition, along with English translation.

119. That on 6^th April 1995 one Shri Rasha Singh Rawat, M.P. send one representation of the Petitioner to Shri P. V. Narsimha Rao, the then Prime Minister of India for appropriate action. But, no action was appeared.

120. That in search of one Senior Lawyer, in or in the month of April 1995 Petitioner wrote a stereo typed letter to about Hundred Senior Lawyers, including Respondent No. 23. No one replied, but the Respondent No. 23 replied by his Letter dated 8^th May 1995 that if the Petitioner can convince that he is a genuine litigant then he can take-up his case. Receiving such letter with such surprising remarks just after few month from the said Draft forwarded by him, Petitioner was socked and wrote back on 17^th May 1995 that he have apprehensions that his opposite parties must have approached to Respondent No. 23, otherwise after knowing the matters relates to infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner he should not have questioned the genuinity of the Petitioner, when earlier, he only after satisfied about the merit of the matter prepared the said draft. In reply thereof Respondent No. 23, by his Letter dated 23^rd May 1995 admitted 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." In the said letter he also asked the Petitioner to offer him a written apology and withdraw the sentence referred in his paragraph 4 of letter, he would be in a position to advise the petitioner appropriately further in the matter. But, the Petitioner not tendered any apology, as he has done nothing wrong. Photocopies of money receipt, covering letter dated 6^th December 1993 and subsequent correspondence held in 1995 between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 23 and draft forwarded by the Respondent No.23 are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE "A-55" collectively.