61. In the year 1987, Petitioner clearly understood that Respondent No. 25 is misusing his black money powers and his white color status against the Petitioner and he was behind atrocities suffered personally by the Petitioner including Attempt to his murder, as such Petitioner decided to expose his real and true picture before the respective authorities including Income Tax Department, Kolkata Municipal Corporation and others, thus started making complaints against wrong doings of the Respondent No. 25 including his various transactions based on huge black money. But most surprisingly his each complaint appears as non-effective. When he searched for the reasons behind such thing he found that he has close connections with Shri Jyoti Basu, through one Mr. Shrawan Kumar Todi, a close friend of Shri Jyoti Basu.
62. That after receipt of Lawyers Notice 20th November 1987 Directorate of Cooperation changed its strategy, and decided to hold enquiry in the garb of Inspection Under Section 92 of the said Act, ignoring the specific legal provisions for the Housing Cooperative Societies. Under the law, Inspection was purely a Departmental matter and outsiders including the members of respective Society cannot be allowed to participate in it, while at the time of enquiry complainants for enquiry are entitled to present at the time of enquiry. As a result, group of Respondent No. 30 not allowed to participate in the garb of Inspection in the arranged enquiry, besides other grounds, including mandatory grounds that membership of aforesaid 7 persons were automatically ceased in accordance with the law, as they refused to accept Allotment made in their favour.
63. That on 20th January 1988, Petitioner purchased properties comprised in aforesaid R. S. Plot No. 219 from the Legal heirs of Late Rabindra Lal Chakraborty through one of his Private Limited Company. Suddenly thereafter many-fold blackmailing activities against Petitioner were cropped up or enlarged from various corners. This was noticed from one Advertisement in May 1988 in a Bengali News Paper published by Respondent No. 32 and her daughter, from which this become ample clear that they also joined hands with the Mafiadom runs and controlled by the Respondent No. 25 against Petitioner. Ld. Mr. P. K. Ray, Barrister-in-Law supplied the copy of the respective Newspaper contained said advertisement. From the advertisement, Respondent No. 32 and her daughter tried to send false message that they were still owners of the properties comprised in aforesaid two Khatian. After going through said Advertisement, Petitioner also Published advertisement in the same Newspaper and in or about October 1988 filed Two Suits for specific performance of Agreement by executing Sale Deeds in respect of properties comprised in R. S. Plot No. 195 and 206 as aforesaid, and recorded as Title Suit No. 138 and 139 of 1988 both of Ld. Court of 7th Assistant District Judge, Alipore.
64. That just for sake of argument, if refusal to allow the Group of Respondent No.30 to participate in the garb of Inspection in the arranged enquiry, if it was any cause of action, than on the basis of the alleged cause of action said group of 7 persons should have joined in a single dispute case. But as the object behind formation of the aforesaid group was just to blackmail the Petitioner, to pressurise him to sale the properties to the Respondent No. 25, as such under some strategy or otherwise on 30th May 1988 single person being Respondent No. 30, filed Dispute Case No. 43/RCS of 1987-88 of the Respondent No. 12, and one Shri Arjun Mondal, Dy. RCS, was appointed as arbitrator in the matter under Rule 174 of West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987 under Section 96(1)( c) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, to adjudicate the matter in dispute. But, for some malafide reasons or objects and after 66 days from such appointment but in severe violations of Section 96(2) of the said Act, read with Rule 178 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987, without having any appointment or authority file of the said Dispute Case was handed over to one Mr. N. Goswami to adjudicate the dispute. As such Mr. N. Goswami in the said Dispute Case from day one of the appearance of the Petitioner proceeded in most absurd and illegal manner. Each and every fact relates to such illegality were put on record by the Petitioner.
65. That subsequently this was come to notice of the Petitioner that in the same year of 1988 Respondent No. 32 and her daughter also filed a Title Suit for declaration, against the Petitioner and published an advertisement in Baratman referring the entire R. S. Khatian No. 530 and 534 as their Property. They with sole object to blackmail the Petitioner referred the measurement of the properties comprised in R. S. Khatian No. 530 and 534 as 94 Cottas after manipulating it against actual measurement of 66 Cottas. At the same time, with malafide intentions, plaintiffs suppressed the material fact from the plaint that their predecessors-in-interest as per aforesaid Judgment pronounced in 1977 lost all his rights, title, claims in respect of the properties comprised in R. S. Plot No. 219 as aforesaid, which as per Records of Rights was more or less 10 Cottas of land, which was also out of aforesaid 66 Cottas. In the Plaint they admitted sale of 35 Cottas of land to the Petitioner. Therefore, after deduction of said 35 Cottas of Land, and 10 cottas of land (lost in the said Suit) they could have any claim, if so, not more than 21 cottas of land, but under manipulation Suit property was made 59 Cottas of Land for Injunction Order, with clear object to blackmail the Petitioner.
66. That 21st June 1988 Division Bench of Kolkata High Court headed by Honble Mr. Justice G. N. Ray refused to grant stay upon application filed by Respondent No. 28 against Judgment of High Court dated 31st March 1988. However, under illegal instructions from Shri Jyoti Basu, Respondent No. 19 was active against the Petitioner as such on 13th July 1988 without intimating the Petitioner, 23rd July 1988 was fixed for hearing. On 22nd July 1988 Mr. D. K. Nath, Municipal Engineer in presence of one Mr. Mahendra Rungta admitted before Shri Debi Prasad Ruia that Respondent No. 19 will compel the Petitioner to sell the properties to Respondent No. 25. Similarly on 23rd July 1988 Mr. Debbarata Bandopadhyay, Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Buildings) admitted in presence of Ld. Mr. S. K. Kapoor, Bar-at-Law that hearing is fixed mere a hoax for revoking the plans of Petitioner only. When Mr. Debbarata Bandopadhyay, find nothing to revoke the Plans, adjourned the hearing without fixing next date to restrain the constructional activities taking advantage of Order dated 21.06.1988 of Honble High Court. As such Petitioner moved before the Honble Court where last date for any hearing was fixed as 7th November 1988. Therefore, Respondent No. 19 just on 2nd November 1988 issued Show Cause Notice upon Petitioner. However, once again on 7th November 1988 said two Building Plans were further revoked on fresh, false, flimsy and created interalia grounds that respective Land has no passage for egress or ingress. But, before passing the said second order of revocation on 2nd August 1988 Shri Kamal Basu the then Mayor Respondent No. 19 called the Petitioner through one Councilor Shri Shanti Lal Jain and through him conveyed that if Petitioner wants to live in Kolkata, he should transfer the property to the Respondent No. 25. In considerations of such developments Petitioner sends his letter dated 12th September 1988 to Shri Kamal Basu the then Mayor of Kolkata Municipal Corporation against illegal favour to Respondent No. 25 and Letter dated 27th September 1988 to Prof. S. Nurul Hasan the then Governor of West Bengal, with copy to Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal and Shri Buddha Dev Bhattacharyya, the then Minister of West Bengal, with reference to claim of the Respondent No. 25 that he has support from the powerful politician. When this was become clear that Shanti Lal Jain was also agent of the said Mafiadom, part of the discussion held with him on 2nd August 1988 were placed on record by Letter dated 25th November 1988. In respect of the subsequent Order of Revocation of the Plans, when Petitioner moved another Writ Petition on 9th January 1989 Honble Kolkata High Court appointed Special Officer to submit report, if necessary to take help from High Court Panel Surveyor. After going through the Special Officers Report, Camera Photos and Map, Honble High Court directed to Respondent No. 19 to withdraw its revocation Order and permitted to Petitioner to make construction in accordance with the sanctioned plans. Photocopy of the Show cause Notice issued by the Respondent No. 19 on 2nd November 1988 (5 days before the date of revocation) and letter dated 25th November 1988 sent by the Petitioner to Shri Shanti lal Jain, Councilor are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-"22" collectively.
67. That since the first day of appearance of the Petitioner Mr. N. Goswami, alleged Arbitrator in Dispute Case No. 43/RCS/12987-88 made defamatory remarks against the petitioner and refused to show file of the Dispute case to him or his pleader, as such on 17th March 1989 Petitioner applied for Certified Copy of the entire Order Sheet of the aforesaid Dispute case No. 43/RCS/87-88.
68. That the renowned lawyer Mr. B. C. Dutt, Advocate appeared in several matters on behalf of the Petitioner since 1977, as such on 13th November 1988 he was consulted with regards to the matter of second order of revocation of sanction of Plans by the Respondent No. 19 and consultation fees was paid to him. But, subsequently Mr. C. K. Jain, Solicitors, on behalf of the Petitioner appointed some other Senior Lawyers to move the Writ Petition before Kolkata High Court as such Mr. B. C. Dutta was not appointed in the matter. But, for such a Senior and Honest Lawyer that could not have been a reason for his appearance against the Petitioner in the self-same matter. There might be something extra-ordinary behind the scene, as such Ld. Mr. B. C. Dutt Advocate appeared in the matter on behalf of the Respondent No. 19. In considerations of such development Petitioner send him a Letter dated 28th March 1989 by Registered Post just reminding him about such consultation and payment of Fees. Photocopy of the said Letter is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-"A-23" .
69. That on 6th May 1989 aforesaid 6 Person from the Group of Respondent No. 30 filed two Dispute case No. RCS-112-113/88-89 against Petitioner. The Dispute Cases were filed interalia for the stay against revocation of Allotments, which they themselves earlier refused to accept. Most absurd thing was that on the very same day of filing of the Cases Plaintiffs of Dispute Cases sought Injunction against Petitioner on the false claims that Petitioner is avoiding service of the summons.
70. That on 28th August 1989 Mr. N. Goswami, in presence of Respondent No. 30, Prabhu Dayal Sureka, and several others insulted Petitioner and threatened to thrown him out from Court Room. Petitioner put the fact on record immediately by Letter dated 28th August 1989 by registered post to Mr. N. Goswami. Photocopy of the Letter is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-"A-24"
71. That several Companies of the Respondent No. 25 his relation and associates used huge black money, in purchase of each landed properties and subsequently in sell of each constructed part of such properties. To establish their modus operandi in use of the black money in such transactions, Petitioner referred one particular transaction with complete details. In his complaints Petitioner also referred several other transactions too. The details of facts relates to one such transaction, executed in serious violations of the Income Tax Act, referred by the Petitioner before respective authorities, but, action were not taken by the Government of India, which is a strong evidence that respective authorities virtually acted to protect the huge black money hold by the said Mafiadom. As per records and as per recent Supreme Court Judgment, the aforesaid transaction made by the Two Companies of the said Respondent No. 25 were based on knowing violation of the provisions of the Income tax Act, in various ways. With knowing full intentions to violate the respective provision of the Income Tax Act respective one transaction was divided in to Six, being executed in favour of two of the Companies of Respondent No. 25, and can be explained in the following manner: -
a) on 25th August 1989, one / single Notice in the English Daily Newspaper from Calcutta (Now Kolkata) namely The Telegraph was published by one Messers Pankaj Shroff & Co, Advocates, having their address at 7B, Kiran Sankar Roy Road, Calcutta-700 001 interalia that his clients "Surabhi Properties Pvt. Ltd., and Tripti Properties Ltd., both having their Registered Office at No. 9/1, Lower Rawdon Street, Calcutta have agreed to purchase premises no.53, Ramtanu Lahiri Sarani (formerly 24A, Diomond Harbour Road and originally Plot No.42 of Block "C New Alipore), Calcutta measuring 10 Kottahs 02 Chittacks 38 Sft. from Mr. Pranab Dutta Chowdhury, Smt. Purabi Dutta Chowdhury and Dr. (Miss) Shyamali Dutta Chowdhury all of 53, Ramtanu Lahiri Sarani, Calcutta." b) within six months from aforesaid Notice, on or about 23rd February 1990 the Income Tax Department, West Bengal, published a Notification on several Newspapers for GRAND AUCTION SALE under the signature of Mr. N.R. Sivaswamy, the then Chief Commissioner (Technical), West Bengal, with reference to several properties, including one "Vacant land measuring 5 cottas more or less 12" wide common passage from the main road, forming part of plot no.386A Block "C, New Alipore, Calcutta and renumbered 23A, 386A, Diomond Harbour Road, Calcutta." The said property referred in the Notice of the Income Tax Department was and is situated in the same locality of the properties referred in the said Notice of Messers Pankaj Shroff & Co, Advocates. In the notification of the Income Tax Department "Reserve Price Rs.18,27,000/-" was mentioned, for that particular properties. According to such reserve prices, fixed by the Income Tax department, the amount of Rs.3,65,400/- arises for per cottas of land. This is a matter of the fact that subsequently said Mr. N.R. Sivaswamy, the then Chief Commissioner (Technical) Income Tax Department, West Bengal, was promoted as the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, under the Ministry of Finance and also names in one of the scam from Bihar.
c) properties referred in the Notice of Messers Pankaj Shroff & Co, Advocates, was
abuts upon a wide road of more than 25, while the properties referred in the Notification published by Income Tax Department, West Bengal, admittedly was abuts upon a much lesser wide road of just 12 road. Therefore, under the Municipal Law the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the properties referred in the Notice of Messers Pankaj Shroff & Co, Advocates, was entitled to get sanction for the construction of double floor area ratio, per Cottas, than the floor area ratio could have been available for the properties referred in the Notification of the Income Tax Department. Therefore according to the aforesaid Rs.3,65,400/-per cottas fixed by the Income Tax Department, as aforesaid the market value of the properties referred in the Notice of Messers Pankaj Shroff & Co, Advocates, should have been more or less Rs.7,30,000/- per cottas, thus total value of the properties arises more than Rs.73,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy three lakhs). Since the Petitioner was belongs from the same business, as such can affirm on oath that in any case the valuation of the properties referred in the Notice of Messers Pankaj Shroff & Co, Advocates was not less than Rs.35,00,000/-. d) However, this was reported to the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 25 purchased aforesaid properties as referred in Notice of Messers Pankaj Shroff & Co, Advocates, against cash payment of more or less of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees forty five Lakhs) from the aforesaid Vendors, through his two Companies namely Surabhi Properties Pvt. Ltd., and Tripti Properties Ltd., both having their Registered Office at no.9/1, Lower Rawdon Street, Calcutta. The entire transaction was based on knowing fully manipulations / serious violations of the Section 269UC of Income Tax Act, and based on huge payment of black money.e) That with intentions to violate the Income Tax Act, Respondent No. 25 appointed one of his accountant: Sri Kishore Nagar of 153A, Viveka Nand Road, Calcutta as the Director in one of the aforesaid two Companies named in the Notice of Messers Pankaj Shroff & Co, Advocates. This fact also appeared from the records of the Registrar of the Companies, West Bengal Calcutta. In one of the search report given by one Advocate this was confirmed that the Respondent No. 25 being Director of M/S. Surabhi Properties Private Limited, being one of the Purchaser Company of the aforesaid properties, given authority letter to said Sri Kishore Nagar "to carry out necessary corrections, amendments changes, additions alterations, delitions, and such other work as may be necessary in the Memorandum of Association and Article of Association and other papers / documents filed or to be filed before the Registrar of Companies, Calcutta, West Bengal, for incorporation of above Company, in which Respondent No. 25 was the Director. Sri Kishore Nagar further authorised to make changes, amendments, corrections, additions, delitions and alterations in the subscription clause of memorandum of Associations and Articles of Associations of above company:
"We further agree to ratify and confirm all his acts and deeds."
That the aforesaid authorisation letter is sufficient proof of inter-connections between Respondent No. 25 and Sri Kishore Nagar, as employer and employee. f) under clear manipulations, transactions were divided in to six deeds and purchasers were divided into two, just to reduce the amount of the transactions below the limits fixed Section 269UC of Income Tax Act and to maintain purchase amount below the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-by each Company, as this amount was Limit under the then prevailed provisions Under Section 269UC of the Income Tax Act. Since Vendors were three and alleged purchasers were two the amounts of the payments shown in the deeds were as under: -
Payments shown in three deeds by M/S. Surabhi Properties Pvt. Ltd., having its the then Registered Office at no.9/1, Lower Rawdon Street, Calcutta, were in the following manner:
1.Pranab Dutta Choudhury Rs.4,75,000/-
2.Smt. Purabi Dutta Chowdhury and Rs. 2,37,500/-
3.Dr. (Miss) Shyamali Dutta Chowdhury Rs.2,37,500/-
Total payment shown by another Purchaser Company Rs.9,50,000/-
Payments shown in another three deeds by Tripti Properties Ltd., having its the then Registered Office at no.9/1, Lower Rawdon Street, Calcutta, were in the following manner: -
1.Mr. Pranab Dutta Chowdhury, Rs.4,75,000/-
2. Smt. Purabi Dutta Chowdhury and Rs. 2,37,500/-
3. Dr. (Miss) Shyamali Dutta Chowdhury Rs. 2,37,500/-
Total payment shown by another Purchaser Company Rs.9,50,000/-
after knew About aforesaid transaction Petitioner by his Complaint letter dated 16th November 1989 addressed to Appropriate Authority, Calcutta, Income Tax Department and other authorities informed in respect of concealment of money actually paid in the aforesaid transactions. Thereafter, with reference to aforesaid transactions based on huge black money Petitioner send number-less representations to different authorities, without any result. By Memo Letter No.11/3/94/PM PII/517988 dated 31st May 1994, from the Prime Ministers Office directed the Revenue Secretary for appropriate action in the matter. With reference to said Memo Letter Petitioner sent his Letter dated 12th September 1994 to Revenue Secretary, with kind attention of the then Revenue Secretary Mr. M. R. Sivaraman. But result was zero, as if said Mafia the Respondent No. 25 are much powerful than the law of the land. Now as per the principle settled by the Judgment dated 13th March 2001 in the Civil Appeal 5426 of 1997 by S.P.Bharucha, J, as His lordship then was and N. Santosh Hegde and Y. K. Sabarwal, JJ., the aforesaid transactions is proved as in violation of the Income tax Act. The properties referred in the aforesaid transactions either should have been vested with the Government of India for violation of Section 269UC of Income Tax Act, or matter should have been the subject matter of the said Judgment, as several other similar matters relates to various properties from the country were part of the said Judgment. After the said Judgment on 11th July 2001, Petitioner sent a representation to the Union of India, asking thereby to take appropriate steps in the matter, in accordance with the said Judgment. But, Government of India takes no action in the matter. The object of the Petitioner insisting of action on the basis one particular property was to expose the Modus Operandi for the use of the black money ratio in the payments whether made or received in transactions by the Companies of the Respondent No. 25 or his relations, which otherwise will be more or less same and would have been maintained in respect of all transactions whether executed for purchase of the landed properties or sale of the constructed properties. Respondent No. 25 and his relations are the majority Directors of Martin Burn Limited, and purchased landed properties of more than Few Hundred Crores of Rupees and than constructed multistoried buildings and sold them out. Till now Petitioner sent number less representations to President, Prime Minister, Finance Minister, Cabinet Secretary, Revenue Secretary, Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, and various Offices of the Income Tax Department, Central Vigilance Commission, Central Bureau of Investigation, but without any result, proving that the Mafiadom of the Respondent No. 25 is much powerful than law of the land. During the year 1987 Petitioner sent several letters to the Income Tax Department. Respondent No. 25 admitted that he had seen the Letters of the Petitioner from the Senior Income Tax Officers. After knew such thing Petitioner lodged a Complaint to Mr. Devi Dayal, Director of Inspection (Investigation) Income Tax Department, Kolkata, by Letter Dated 30th November 1987. Most surprisingly by Letter of the same date i. e. 30th November 1987 sent by special messenger Mr. Devi Dayal requested to Petitioner to meet him. Subsequently Petitioner was reported by some important Officer from Income Tax Department that Mr. Devi Dayal himself shown letters of the Petitioner to Respondent No. 25, and for the same reason he replied complaint of the Petitioner promptly. Photocopies of Letter dated 30th November 1987 to Mr. Devi Dayal and his reply of same date, Notification published by M/S. Pankaj Sharrof & Co., Solicitors, Notification published by Income Tax Department, Complaint Lodged by the Petitioner, Search Report of the Advocate and Memo Letter No.11/3/94/PM PII/517988 dated 31st May 1994, from the Prime Ministers Office are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-"A-25" Collectively.
72. That when Petitioner understood that Respondent No. 30 and his group is false claims about Payments made to the Petitioner, he lodged an complaint before the Income Tax authorities giving details of actual payments and false claim made by them by Letter Dated 16th November 1989. Petitioner also obtained Certified Photocopy of a Slip got forged by the Respondent No. 30, in which signature of the Petitioner were also forged. Photocopy of the said Letter and Certified Photocopy of the forged Slip are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-"A-26" Collectively.
73. That after knew from the corrupt Income Tax Personnels that Petitioner is taking actions against Respondent No. 25 with regards to transactions based on huge black money, one day Respondent No. 25 sends threats to the Petitioner that he is in a position to use Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal to harass the Petitioner". As such Petitioner put his threat on record by Letter Dated 11th December 1989 by Registered Post to Respondent No.25. At the same time copy of the said Letter dated 11th December 1989 was forwarded to various authorities, politicians, all by Registered Post including to Shri Buddha Dev Bhattacharyya, the then Minister of West Bengal for Urban Development, Shri Nar Narayan Gooptu, the Advocate-General of West Bengal, Shri Har Kishan Singh Surjeet, General Secretary of CPI (M), Shri Biman Bose, West Bengal CPI (M) Leader by Letters dated 18th December 1989. Photocopy of the said Letter dated 11th December 1989 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE "A-27"
74. That certified copy of Entire Order Sheet of Dispute Case No. 43/RCS/87-88 was supplied to the Petitioner on 6th January 1990 after 9 months about 19 days from date of his application dated 17th March 1989. At the left portion of 1st Page of the Certified Copy, date was corrected by pen, but without having any initial of authority, as such Petitioner returned it to the West Bengal Co-operative directorate for initial. On 1st February 1990 the selfsame Certified Copy was re-supplied after noting on the left part of it that "Corrected on verification of record". ANNEXURE "A-28"
75. That on 10th January 1990 Petitioner filed Appeal No. 3 of 1990 before West Bengal Cooperative Tribunal, against alleged Award pronounced in Dispute Case No.43/RCS/87-88 by Mr. N. Goswami, without having any appointment or authority. In the meantime on 17th January 1990, in the Dispute Case No. RCS/112-113/88-89 one Line Injunction Order was passed against Petitioner.
76. That the Honble Member of the West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal, called the original records of the Dispute Case No.43/RCS/87-88 from the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 5th February 1990 issued notice upon the Respondent No. 31 together with copy of Memorandum of Appeal. After receipt of the said Order dated 5th February 1990 and knew about grounds of Memo in Appeal No. 3 of 1990 of West Bengal Cooperative Tribunal, on 9th February 1990 Mrs. Mira Pandey, hurriedly issued Unofficial Order No. 48 directing thereby to State Of West Bengal to appoint Administrator in the matter of Cooperative Society. At the same time Mrs. Mira Pandey the then Registrar Respondent No. 12 and Mr. Mihir Ranjan Choudhury, ARCS, and group of Respondent No. 30 and its Member Prabhu Dayal Sureka, forged 1st and 2nd page of the Order Sheet to insert the name of Mr. N. Goswami as Arbitrator. Upon enquiry, this was become clear that the format of the 1st page of the Order Sheet were used by the Office of Registrar from the Order Sheets Printed from the Government Press, showing Print Order reference. But said forged Order Sheet was prepared on Electronic Type Writer even at the material time office of Registrar was not the facility of the Electronic Type Writer. In the forged Order Sheet, name of the Plaintiff and the Defendants were recorded by the pen and hand of said Prabhu Dayal Sureka, being member of Group of the Respondent No. 30, whose Membership was ceased by operation of Law and who was one of the signatory in application for enquiry of the working of the Cooperative Society, and was not a Government Employee, as such he was not entitled to fill-up the same. However, said Mihir Ranjan Choudhury, ARCS, was also party to said forgery, as by his own hand and pen he inserted at the just below right corner of the Order Sheet that "Shri N. Goswami is appointed as Arbitrator in place of Shri Arjun Mondal" in severe violations of Section 96(2) of the said Act, read with Rule 178 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987, being the mandatory legal compliance, for replacement of one appointed Arbitrator. This anomaly was caused because under prevailing Law and Rules there were no scopes to replace appointed arbitrator Shri Arjun Mondal. To prove hand writing of the Prabhu Dayal Sureka in the forged Order Sheet, Petitioner have in his possession 1 envelop and 1 Postal Acknowledgement used by the said Prabhu Dayal Sureka to send a letter by Registered Post, and form of Summon relates to Dispute Case filed by Raj Kumar Dhawan and another, all fill-up by the hand and pen of Mr. Prabhu Dayal Sureka. ANNEXURE "A-28"
77. That after completion of forgery in the order sheet, on 16th February 1990 respective dealing clerk of Certified Copies in the Cooperation Directorate requested the Petitioner to give back the Certified Copy of Entire Order Sheet re-supplied on 1st February 1990, in the pretext that one order is to be inserted in the certified copy of order Sheet. After cross discussions it was become ample clear to the Petitioner that he was directed to convey such false message to the Petitioner, otherwise an order was inserted in order sheet of Dispute Case No. 43/RCS/87-88 under order from Mrs. Mira Pandey, the then Registrar of West Bengal Cooperative Societies. In consideration of such fact Petitioner send his protest Letter dated 18th February 1990 by Registered Post to Mrs. Mira Pandey, placing on record that between 2nd February 1990 and 16th February 1990 alleged order inserting the name of Mr. N. Goswami, was interpolated in the order sheet. ANNEXURE "A-28"
78. That on 17th February 1990 under illegal impact of aforesaid unofficial Order No. 48 dated 9th February 1990 being issued by Mrs. Mira Pandey, the then Registrar of Cooperative Societies, without applying its administrative mind, and in severe violations of various provisions of West Bengal Cooperative Act, and relying upon the recommendation of Mr. N. Goswami, in his alleged Award, which pronounced without having any appointment or authority, Government of West Bengal issued an illegal, whimsical, without any grounds whatsoever, issued Notification No.673-Coop/A/8A-1/90 appointing thereby an alleged Administrator. In the said Notification out of total 9 (nine) grounds 8 (eights) were language of provisions of the West Bengal Cooperative Law, and 9th being the last ground was recommendations of the alleged Arbitrator Mr. N. Goswami, who was adjudicated the entire matter without any appointment or authority to do so. ANNEXURE "A-28"
79. That after refusal by the Petitioner to give back the Certified Copy of entire Order Sheet of Dispute Case No.43/RCS/87-88, re-supplied on 1st February 1990, to the Petitioner on 19th February 1990, the particular Officer, who earlier signed Certified Copies as authorised signatory, issued Memo Letter No. 1602 with false claim, caused under after thought that one order was omitted inadvertently at the time of supply of the Certified copy. Photocopies of the 1st Page of the Certified Copy of entire Order Sheet supplied on 6th January 1990 and again re-supplied on 1st February 1990 and 1st and 2nd (backside of the 1st Page) page of the forged order Sheet and few other documents containing handwriting of Prabhu Dayal Sureka, said Notification dated 17th February 1990 and Memo Letter No. 1602 dated 19.2.1990 are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE "A-28"
80. That in considerations of constant blackmailing activities prevailed against the Petitioner, with the help of Cooperation Directorate of West Bengal, Petitioner met with one Shri Dilip Kumar Chakraborty, Ex-MP, who personally meet and also wrote Letter dated 9th March 1990 to Shri Bhakti Bhusan Mandal, Minister of Cooperation, West Bengal. After Letter from Prof. Dilip Chkraborty, Ex-M.P., Petitioner meet several times with Shri Bhakti Bhusan Mondal, West Bengal Minister, who finally directed to Mr. A. M. Mazumdar, Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing) CMAH, to arrange a Joint Meeting in his chamber and instructed on one of the representation dated 27th March 1990 of the Petitioner asking Mr. Mazumdar to "look into the matter". However, a joint meeting was fixed on 25th April 1990 and started at the Chamber of the Minister at Writers Building where Mr. Mazumdar and the Petitioner were present. After commencing the meeting, Minister instructed to Petitioner to submit his matter. At this stage said Mazumdar wanted to say something secretly, as such Petitioner moved for time being out of the Ministers Chamber. Within about 30 seconds or so said Mazumdar come out of the Ministers Chamber and informed the personal assistant to the Minister that he had finished his job and going back to his office. Thereafter, when Petitioner entered in the Chamber, Minister failed to recognise the Petitioner as well as Shri Dilip Kumar Chakraborty, Ex-MP and refused that he had called the Petitioner for any Joint Meeting. Petitioner, with such surprising experiences returned back.