Date: 10.02.2010
To,
The Honorable Supreme court of India.
I have not been called upon to give my views on above critical subject, yet I thought it expedient to give. With my limited knowledge, I wish to say few lines about appointment of judges at High courts and at Supreme court. The necessary incidents that come to my mind are- the constitution of India & our democratic settings.
In our vast, beautiful, geographical landscape of India, i.e. Bharat, no one will dispute, the constitution of India is the supreme & fundamental governing volume. This epic governing volume makes a categorical announcement in the introductory passage that people of India are the architect of this volume.
This Nation has been an elective democracy where people "elect" their representatives, who in turn make laws for them. When people of India have power to elect who should make laws for them, it is quite prudent and reasonable to say, and no man should dispute, people too have power to know, how men (read judges) are "selected" at Higher Court in the country, who are nearly given “legislative powers” under of the Constitution of India, for they are court of Record, and absolute legislative powers under Article 141 of constitution of India. (Emphasis added)
And therefore it comes to my mind, that, judges of higher courts, every word they utter in the court, at times, shape human lives for generations; and sometime allow women and men to sense deep breath of safety. And if we merely look at Article 21 of constitution, and see their utterance and we will only amaze the kind of concern the judges have displayed and the service this institution has done to Indian mankind. The mercies are numerous. The reverse of this is - A single corrupt at these high constitutional office is far more dangerous to a civil society than dreaded dawood ibrahim, Taliban and all militants put together.
Therefore, the people of India are the most interested party to check appointments at these constitutional offices, the High Courts and the Supreme court. Judges say- but it is the danger to judicial independence if I come to know how they are appointed. I cannot see any danger by any prudent stretch of imagination.
A Salute to constitution of India,
Sandeep Jalan
Janhit Manch, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai- 400056.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Citizenry, make noise, for your Life..
05.02.2010
dear citizenry,
I am another you.
It comes to my mind that in many respects, we now live in a society that is only formally democratic, as the great mass of citizens have minimal say on the major public issues of the day, and such issues are scarcely debated at all in any meaningful sense in the electoral arena.
Like for example- Child begging at Rly stns and traffic signals is not surprising, but is disturbing nevertheless. it has always been a matter of concern and equally baffling, why this gross apparent human indignity is tolerated by us and Why our Govts. & Justices are least bothered.
Though I could not find answers for why we are silent onlookers, but surely I got answer for Why Govts. & Justices care little. The Answer is, "Since We dont care, Our Govts. & Justices too dont care". Govts. dont do their jobs simply because We dont want 'It' to be done. It is "us" who never wished "sincerely" that Childrens shouldnt beg for living. Hence, It makes little sense to pull Govts for all the rubbish acts they do and honest act they dont do. There lies our "consent" in all those Govt acts and omissions. So, We shouldnt be surprised if Govts. care little if our Farmers commits suicides.
Instances are endless.
I have recorded a ONE page letter to Shri Chidamabarm, the present Home Minister of India. Of course, it is NOT expected that he will immediately swing into action after receiving this letter. Of course this letter needs to be supplemented with many other actions, including moving in the court of law for desired relief. And i also feel that if bulk of the citizenry will record letter, not same but on similar lines, he may feel swinging into action.
The consistency with which we are reported of murders and other forms of goondaism that is happening around us and equal consistency with which 'we' remain unharmed for so many years despite so, one cannot avoid the conclusion, I am quite safe. We all think so.
We should have a desire to know what is going on. I request all my brothers and sisters to get concerned and agitated. "I" cannot but "WE" can influence. Spread the word.
While we follow uncritically, and obey whatever he command. That's just what the Germans did with Hitler, and look where he got them.
--
iN APPRECIATION,
Sandeep Jalan
Janhit Manch, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai- 400056.
My Letter is:
Subject: a Noteworthy Murder, Kidnapping amidst Marathi / Non Marathi Orchestra.
Date: 5th February 2010
To, Shri Chidamabarm, The HOME Minister of India.
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block
Central Secretariat
New Delhi - 110 001
Phone: 23092011, 23092161
Fax: 23093750, 23092763
Today Morning newspaper has a front page noteworthy news. Free Press Journal. Murdered while at Sleeping at HOME, in Kandivali, mumbai, India, planet earth. Yesterday Hindustan Times too had one noteworthy news. A 11 year old boy was kidnapped and later murdered. (Emphasis added)
http://www.freepressjournal.in/FPJ/FPJ/2010/02/05/ArticleHtmls/05_02_2010_001_017.shtml?Mode=1
http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=04_02_2010_007_005&kword=&mode=1
I think it requires a bulk of courage and conviction for a man to break into a house and execute a murder and equally courageous for a man to kidnap a 11 year old child from public street in broad daylight. It appears, that man import courage and conviction while comparing courage & conviction of our police man. Perhaps, that man know it well, not much police are present everywhere nor the police patrol and if at all police come across, he can easily handle the present police "force".
One thing is quite plain. There are criminals, dangerous and petty, unfear of anything, spread out in society, in the whole of India, and they strike at will.
The law of the land expect so much, especially from police constabulary. They have been given the duty to prevent Rioting, Murder, Robbery, Dacoity, Kidnapping, Extortions, Rape, Organized drug trafficking, human trafficking, Crimes of Slumlords, AK-47/56 armed terrorists including other petty offences. Given the lawless order of the day we the people witness, leave alone the history sheeters, even petty offenders appear to have not feared of present symbolic Police force of the country. Nevertheless, the Cane Constabulary themselves work in continous danger to their own life whilst their counterpart are armed with modern day weapons.
Whilst the central and state govts are found fascinated to enact stricter Penal laws. Yet, the whole purpose of having penal laws is that they may not be applied at all, by effectively preventing the commission of same, by powerful street presence of well equipped police force.
In the light of above, may I request the Home Minister Shri Chidamabaram, the Commander, to direct all State Govts to constitute a special & dedicated constabulary force, for every district, that will cover at every corner of the district land and whose 24x7x365 powerful presence will threaten the evil intentions of the man who has started on the path of committing murder/ rape/ kidnapping/ robbery.
While you have given to yourself a VIP security of Life, is it unfair to seek a reasonable security of our lives, if not VIP ?
Sandeep Jalan
Janhit Manch, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai- 400056.
Also Pls find:-
LINK TO INDIAN CITIZENS POCKET GUIDE TO POLICE LAWS:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/04/indian-citizens-pocket-guide-to-police.html
LINK TO PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS: GUIDELINES, PRINCIPLES, PROCEDURE:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-to-file-writ-petition-or-pil-writ.html
LINK TO: RESOLVE OFFICIALS NEGLIGENCE / ILLEGALITIES BY SERVING NOTICE U/S 80 OF CPC 1908:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/09/resolve-public-officials-negligence.html
LINK TO SOME KEY LAW POINTS: PRE-LITIGATION, DURING-LITIGATION:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/08/invaluable-key-points-for-present.html
ANNOYING DECISIONS OF THE STATE: I HAVE ABSOLUTE DISCRETIONARY POWERS, IS A FALSE CLAIM:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/08/rtipil-to-nail-all-annoying-decision-of.html
BEING EMPOWERED IS FUN. RTI IS FUN: http://rti.gov.in/
May visit my web site at http://www.pilwrit.org/
dear citizenry,
I am another you.
It comes to my mind that in many respects, we now live in a society that is only formally democratic, as the great mass of citizens have minimal say on the major public issues of the day, and such issues are scarcely debated at all in any meaningful sense in the electoral arena.
Like for example- Child begging at Rly stns and traffic signals is not surprising, but is disturbing nevertheless. it has always been a matter of concern and equally baffling, why this gross apparent human indignity is tolerated by us and Why our Govts. & Justices are least bothered.
Though I could not find answers for why we are silent onlookers, but surely I got answer for Why Govts. & Justices care little. The Answer is, "Since We dont care, Our Govts. & Justices too dont care". Govts. dont do their jobs simply because We dont want 'It' to be done. It is "us" who never wished "sincerely" that Childrens shouldnt beg for living. Hence, It makes little sense to pull Govts for all the rubbish acts they do and honest act they dont do. There lies our "consent" in all those Govt acts and omissions. So, We shouldnt be surprised if Govts. care little if our Farmers commits suicides.
Instances are endless.
I have recorded a ONE page letter to Shri Chidamabarm, the present Home Minister of India. Of course, it is NOT expected that he will immediately swing into action after receiving this letter. Of course this letter needs to be supplemented with many other actions, including moving in the court of law for desired relief. And i also feel that if bulk of the citizenry will record letter, not same but on similar lines, he may feel swinging into action.
The consistency with which we are reported of murders and other forms of goondaism that is happening around us and equal consistency with which 'we' remain unharmed for so many years despite so, one cannot avoid the conclusion, I am quite safe. We all think so.
We should have a desire to know what is going on. I request all my brothers and sisters to get concerned and agitated. "I" cannot but "WE" can influence. Spread the word.
While we follow uncritically, and obey whatever he command. That's just what the Germans did with Hitler, and look where he got them.
--
iN APPRECIATION,
Sandeep Jalan
Janhit Manch, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai- 400056.
My Letter is:
Subject: a Noteworthy Murder, Kidnapping amidst Marathi / Non Marathi Orchestra.
Date: 5th February 2010
To, Shri Chidamabarm, The HOME Minister of India.
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block
Central Secretariat
New Delhi - 110 001
Phone: 23092011, 23092161
Fax: 23093750, 23092763
Today Morning newspaper has a front page noteworthy news. Free Press Journal. Murdered while at Sleeping at HOME, in Kandivali, mumbai, India, planet earth. Yesterday Hindustan Times too had one noteworthy news. A 11 year old boy was kidnapped and later murdered. (Emphasis added)
http://www.freepressjournal.in/FPJ/FPJ/2010/02/05/ArticleHtmls/05_02_2010_001_017.shtml?Mode=1
http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=04_02_2010_007_005&kword=&mode=1
I think it requires a bulk of courage and conviction for a man to break into a house and execute a murder and equally courageous for a man to kidnap a 11 year old child from public street in broad daylight. It appears, that man import courage and conviction while comparing courage & conviction of our police man. Perhaps, that man know it well, not much police are present everywhere nor the police patrol and if at all police come across, he can easily handle the present police "force".
One thing is quite plain. There are criminals, dangerous and petty, unfear of anything, spread out in society, in the whole of India, and they strike at will.
The law of the land expect so much, especially from police constabulary. They have been given the duty to prevent Rioting, Murder, Robbery, Dacoity, Kidnapping, Extortions, Rape, Organized drug trafficking, human trafficking, Crimes of Slumlords, AK-47/56 armed terrorists including other petty offences. Given the lawless order of the day we the people witness, leave alone the history sheeters, even petty offenders appear to have not feared of present symbolic Police force of the country. Nevertheless, the Cane Constabulary themselves work in continous danger to their own life whilst their counterpart are armed with modern day weapons.
Whilst the central and state govts are found fascinated to enact stricter Penal laws. Yet, the whole purpose of having penal laws is that they may not be applied at all, by effectively preventing the commission of same, by powerful street presence of well equipped police force.
In the light of above, may I request the Home Minister Shri Chidamabaram, the Commander, to direct all State Govts to constitute a special & dedicated constabulary force, for every district, that will cover at every corner of the district land and whose 24x7x365 powerful presence will threaten the evil intentions of the man who has started on the path of committing murder/ rape/ kidnapping/ robbery.
While you have given to yourself a VIP security of Life, is it unfair to seek a reasonable security of our lives, if not VIP ?
Sandeep Jalan
Janhit Manch, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai- 400056.
Also Pls find:-
LINK TO INDIAN CITIZENS POCKET GUIDE TO POLICE LAWS:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/04/indian-citizens-pocket-guide-to-police.html
LINK TO PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS: GUIDELINES, PRINCIPLES, PROCEDURE:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-to-file-writ-petition-or-pil-writ.html
LINK TO: RESOLVE OFFICIALS NEGLIGENCE / ILLEGALITIES BY SERVING NOTICE U/S 80 OF CPC 1908:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/09/resolve-public-officials-negligence.html
LINK TO SOME KEY LAW POINTS: PRE-LITIGATION, DURING-LITIGATION:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/08/invaluable-key-points-for-present.html
ANNOYING DECISIONS OF THE STATE: I HAVE ABSOLUTE DISCRETIONARY POWERS, IS A FALSE CLAIM:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/08/rtipil-to-nail-all-annoying-decision-of.html
BEING EMPOWERED IS FUN. RTI IS FUN: http://rti.gov.in/
May visit my web site at http://www.pilwrit.org/
Saturday, January 23, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: a good case TO study; 21 ORDERS in ONE page
a CLASSIC case study of SLP (Civil) 14983 of 2005 in Supreme Court of India.
An SLP (Special Leave Petition) 14983 was filed before Supreme Court (SC) on 09.05.2005, challenging the order passed by Bombay High Court.
The first hearing took place on 05.08.2005.
The last hearing took place on 15.01.2010.
In all, marathon 21 hearings were held before various Benches of the SC, including above two hearings. In hearing on 16.11.2009, just prior to concluding hearing on 15.01.2010, the Petitioner, on his special request, were allowed to file Rejoinder and additional documents. On 15.01.2010, the advocates for the Petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition as they wish to move the Bombay High Court.
During this hearing, the Interveners in this case brought to the notice of presiding Judges, the serious irregularities on the part of Petitioners and also brought to the notice the active collusive collaboration of Petitioners and Respondents in the case. It was vehemently stated that Petitioner is merely misusing the court forum and has deliberately keep pushing the matter for eventual collapse. It was again vehemently alleged by Interveners that the Petitioner has done nothing in the last 20 hearing spanning nearly 5 years. It was vehemently brought to the notice of the presiding Judges that both Petitioners and Respondents are suppressing crucial facts, the facts they have suppressed before Bombay High court too, and misled the Bombay High court to pass a false order. However, the above allegations of Interveners amounts to criminal contempt of the court, both of Bombay High Court and of Supreme Court, the presiding Judges of SC, contrary to obvious expectation, were seems to be not shocked by the serious allegations made, alonwith documentary evidences, against both the litigants, the Petitioners & the Respondents. The presiding judges gave a cold response to these allegations.
The presiding Judges, notwithstanding the waste of precious time of the SC in marathon 21 hearings, granted permission to the petitioners to withdraw the case. In 21 marathon hearings, which took invaluable time of the SC, the issue before the court has successfully maintained no progress.
The Petitioner, who came to SC challenging HC order, pleaded on 21st hearing that he wants to go to HC for relief. The presiding Judges readily granted permission and they thought fit not to ask the Petitioner, then why did they knocked SC doors in the first place, and why did they wasted precious time of the court that were spent in 21 hearings. The presiding Judges thought fit not to seek any clarifications from the Petitioners and from Respondents of serious allegations levelled against them by the Interveners.
The Bench of CJI K G Balakrishnan & Justice Deepak Verma were presiding the Bench on 15.01.2010. The issue involved was allotment of land to the Petitioner valued at about Rs.100 crores. The land is reserved for building Institution of Higher Learning, where a beautiful Mall and Residential buildings has come up, but no Institution of higher learning has come so far.
The Respondents were famous Bombay Municipal Corporation and Petitioners were an Education Trust. The Interveners was a concerned managing committee member of the said Education Trust.
Wondering if this is the manner our SUPREME APEX COURT deliver JUSTICE. THEN WHAT TO EXPECT FROM LOWER COURTS OF THE COUNTRY. SUPREME COURT is not ONLY a noun, it is an adjective TOO.
WHEREAS THIS COURT IS TIME & AGAIN SEEN PASSING STRICTURES ON GOVT FOR NOT OBEYING THE DIRECTIONS OF LAW, AND HERE THIS COURT ITSELF HAS GIVEN PERMISSION AND CONVENIENTLY DISREGARDING THE DIRECTIONS OF LAW.
Order 17, Rule 1, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908 does not allow more than 3 adjournments and is to be read with the proviso to Order 17, Rule 2 where Clause (b) stipulates that no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party That although however, in practice, adjournments are sought and obtained at the asking and other delays are being allowed with impunity or at very nominal costs, if any. That this is the situation prevailing in spite of this Court having held in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2005) 6 SCC 344, that “…grant of any adjournment let alone the first, second or third adjournment is not a right of a party. The grant of adjournment by a court has to be on a party showing special and extraordinary circumstance. It cannot be routine. While considering prayer for adjournment, it is necessary to keep in mind the legislative intent to restrict grant of adjournments.”
THE MAXIMUM LOSS: A DECADE IS LOST IN THE USELESS COURT BATTLE. HAD THE HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WAS BUILT IN 1999 OR 2000, AT THIS TIME TODAY, AT LEAST 10 THOUSAND CHILDRENS WOULD HAVE SHAPED THEIR LIFE CAREERS AND WOULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMY. THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION APART FROM THIS WOULD HAVE CREATED EMPLOYMENT FOR 100 PEOPLE, AND SUSTAINING 100 FAMILIES.
In my FIRM view: THE HONORABLE PARLIAMENTARIANS OF INDIA, WHILE THEY MAY LEAVE ASIDE IF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IS ON MERIT OR NOT, BUT THEY SHOULD SEEK EXPLANATION FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AS HOW THEY CAN IGNORE THE LETTER OF THE LAW AS CONTAINED IN CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (CPC) OF 1908. THIS STYLE OF FUNCTIONING OF APEX COURT OF THE COUNTRY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
THE HONOURABLE PARLIAMENTARIANS ARE REQUESTED TO SECURE ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE MEN AT HELMS OF JUDICIARY.
WHEREAS THE JUDICIARY IS TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED LAWS PASSED BY THE PARLIAMENT AND BY THE STATE LEGISLATURES, HOW THEY CAN DEVIATE FROM THESE LAWS.
THE ENTIRE FOUNDATION OF JUSTICE DELIVERY IS BASED ON SPEEDY HEARING OF CASES AND FOR THAT THE ABOVE RULE OF CPC SHOULD BE STRICTLY OBSERVED TO.
THIS IS HOW 21 PROCEEDINGS UNFOLDED BEFORE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA WHERE THE CASE HAS MADE NO PROGRESS. THE BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SPENT A FORTUNE OF PUBLIC MONEY ON PAYING HEFTY COUNSELS FEES. THE PETITIONER TOO SPENT TRUST MONEY, I. E. PUBLIC MONEY TO PAY HEFTY COUNSELS FEES.
1. ORDER 05.08.2005: UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the Petitioner, the matter is adjourned for four weeks. 2. ORDER 02.09.2005 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the Petitioner, adjourned for six weeks. 3. ORDER 30.01.2006 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: In view of the letter circulated by the counsel for the petitioner, adjourned by four weeks. 4. ORDER 27.02.2006 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: In view of the letter circulated by the learned counsel for respondent no.1, four weeks'time is granted to file the counter affidavit. 5. ORDER 20.04.2006 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Four weeks' time is been granted to file counter affidavit. List after four weeks. 6.ORDER 10.07.2006 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Four weeks' time has been granted as last chance to file counter, as prayed for. List again on 10.8.2006. 7. ORDER 10.08.2006 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: It has been submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 that counter is being filed in the course of the day. List again on 17.8.2006. 8. ORDER 17.08.2006 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Office is to state as to whether there is any order from the Hon'ble Court to issue notice to respondent no. 2. List again on 5.9.2006. 9. ORDER 15.09.2006 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Counter has been already filed by respondent No.1. Therefore, list before the Hon'ble Court. 10. ORDER 13.10.2006 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Let this matter come up in the month of January, 2007 because by then it is expected that the Screening Committee which is considering the proposal in favour of the petitioner may be able to take a decision. 11. ORDER 05.01.2007 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: In view of the letter circulated, put up after eight weeks. 12. ORDER 19.03.2007 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: List after six weeks. 13. ORDER 11.05.2007 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the matter be placed after summer vacation. 14. ORDER 11.07.2007 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Adjourned by two weeks. 15.ORDER 05.10.2007 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: List before a Bench of which Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dalveer Bhandari is not a member. 16.ORDER 11.01.2008 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Place the petition after three months. In the meantime, the Screening Committee is directed to decide the matter. 17. ORDER 16.04.2008 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Two weeks' time is allowed to the respondent- Corporation to file additional documents. 18. ORDER 05.10.2009 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Prayer for grant of time to file rejoinder affidavit is rejected. However, it will be open to the parties to file additional documents within four weeks. Place the petition thereafter under the heading "After Notice Matters". 19.ORDER 03.11.2009 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Perused the letter. The case is adjourned by two weeks, as prayed for. 20. ORDER 16.11.2009 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Put up after eight weeks. In the meantime, further additional documents and rejoinder affidavit shall be filed. 21. ORDER 15.01.2010 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition as he would like to move the High Court. Permission granted. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sandeep Jalan.
Janhit Manch, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai- 400056.
Email- legallyspeaking.jalan@gmail.com
An SLP (Special Leave Petition) 14983 was filed before Supreme Court (SC) on 09.05.2005, challenging the order passed by Bombay High Court.
The first hearing took place on 05.08.2005.
The last hearing took place on 15.01.2010.
In all, marathon 21 hearings were held before various Benches of the SC, including above two hearings. In hearing on 16.11.2009, just prior to concluding hearing on 15.01.2010, the Petitioner, on his special request, were allowed to file Rejoinder and additional documents. On 15.01.2010, the advocates for the Petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition as they wish to move the Bombay High Court.
During this hearing, the Interveners in this case brought to the notice of presiding Judges, the serious irregularities on the part of Petitioners and also brought to the notice the active collusive collaboration of Petitioners and Respondents in the case. It was vehemently stated that Petitioner is merely misusing the court forum and has deliberately keep pushing the matter for eventual collapse. It was again vehemently alleged by Interveners that the Petitioner has done nothing in the last 20 hearing spanning nearly 5 years. It was vehemently brought to the notice of the presiding Judges that both Petitioners and Respondents are suppressing crucial facts, the facts they have suppressed before Bombay High court too, and misled the Bombay High court to pass a false order. However, the above allegations of Interveners amounts to criminal contempt of the court, both of Bombay High Court and of Supreme Court, the presiding Judges of SC, contrary to obvious expectation, were seems to be not shocked by the serious allegations made, alonwith documentary evidences, against both the litigants, the Petitioners & the Respondents. The presiding judges gave a cold response to these allegations.
The presiding Judges, notwithstanding the waste of precious time of the SC in marathon 21 hearings, granted permission to the petitioners to withdraw the case. In 21 marathon hearings, which took invaluable time of the SC, the issue before the court has successfully maintained no progress.
The Petitioner, who came to SC challenging HC order, pleaded on 21st hearing that he wants to go to HC for relief. The presiding Judges readily granted permission and they thought fit not to ask the Petitioner, then why did they knocked SC doors in the first place, and why did they wasted precious time of the court that were spent in 21 hearings. The presiding Judges thought fit not to seek any clarifications from the Petitioners and from Respondents of serious allegations levelled against them by the Interveners.
The Bench of CJI K G Balakrishnan & Justice Deepak Verma were presiding the Bench on 15.01.2010. The issue involved was allotment of land to the Petitioner valued at about Rs.100 crores. The land is reserved for building Institution of Higher Learning, where a beautiful Mall and Residential buildings has come up, but no Institution of higher learning has come so far.
The Respondents were famous Bombay Municipal Corporation and Petitioners were an Education Trust. The Interveners was a concerned managing committee member of the said Education Trust.
Wondering if this is the manner our SUPREME APEX COURT deliver JUSTICE. THEN WHAT TO EXPECT FROM LOWER COURTS OF THE COUNTRY. SUPREME COURT is not ONLY a noun, it is an adjective TOO.
WHEREAS THIS COURT IS TIME & AGAIN SEEN PASSING STRICTURES ON GOVT FOR NOT OBEYING THE DIRECTIONS OF LAW, AND HERE THIS COURT ITSELF HAS GIVEN PERMISSION AND CONVENIENTLY DISREGARDING THE DIRECTIONS OF LAW.
Order 17, Rule 1, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908 does not allow more than 3 adjournments and is to be read with the proviso to Order 17, Rule 2 where Clause (b) stipulates that no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party That although however, in practice, adjournments are sought and obtained at the asking and other delays are being allowed with impunity or at very nominal costs, if any. That this is the situation prevailing in spite of this Court having held in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2005) 6 SCC 344, that “…grant of any adjournment let alone the first, second or third adjournment is not a right of a party. The grant of adjournment by a court has to be on a party showing special and extraordinary circumstance. It cannot be routine. While considering prayer for adjournment, it is necessary to keep in mind the legislative intent to restrict grant of adjournments.”
THE MAXIMUM LOSS: A DECADE IS LOST IN THE USELESS COURT BATTLE. HAD THE HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WAS BUILT IN 1999 OR 2000, AT THIS TIME TODAY, AT LEAST 10 THOUSAND CHILDRENS WOULD HAVE SHAPED THEIR LIFE CAREERS AND WOULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMY. THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION APART FROM THIS WOULD HAVE CREATED EMPLOYMENT FOR 100 PEOPLE, AND SUSTAINING 100 FAMILIES.
In my FIRM view: THE HONORABLE PARLIAMENTARIANS OF INDIA, WHILE THEY MAY LEAVE ASIDE IF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IS ON MERIT OR NOT, BUT THEY SHOULD SEEK EXPLANATION FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AS HOW THEY CAN IGNORE THE LETTER OF THE LAW AS CONTAINED IN CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (CPC) OF 1908. THIS STYLE OF FUNCTIONING OF APEX COURT OF THE COUNTRY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
THE HONOURABLE PARLIAMENTARIANS ARE REQUESTED TO SECURE ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE MEN AT HELMS OF JUDICIARY.
WHEREAS THE JUDICIARY IS TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED LAWS PASSED BY THE PARLIAMENT AND BY THE STATE LEGISLATURES, HOW THEY CAN DEVIATE FROM THESE LAWS.
THE ENTIRE FOUNDATION OF JUSTICE DELIVERY IS BASED ON SPEEDY HEARING OF CASES AND FOR THAT THE ABOVE RULE OF CPC SHOULD BE STRICTLY OBSERVED TO.
THIS IS HOW 21 PROCEEDINGS UNFOLDED BEFORE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA WHERE THE CASE HAS MADE NO PROGRESS. THE BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SPENT A FORTUNE OF PUBLIC MONEY ON PAYING HEFTY COUNSELS FEES. THE PETITIONER TOO SPENT TRUST MONEY, I. E. PUBLIC MONEY TO PAY HEFTY COUNSELS FEES.
1. ORDER 05.08.2005: UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the Petitioner, the matter is adjourned for four weeks. 2. ORDER 02.09.2005 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the Petitioner, adjourned for six weeks. 3. ORDER 30.01.2006 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: In view of the letter circulated by the counsel for the petitioner, adjourned by four weeks. 4. ORDER 27.02.2006 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: In view of the letter circulated by the learned counsel for respondent no.1, four weeks'time is granted to file the counter affidavit. 5. ORDER 20.04.2006 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Four weeks' time is been granted to file counter affidavit. List after four weeks. 6.ORDER 10.07.2006 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Four weeks' time has been granted as last chance to file counter, as prayed for. List again on 10.8.2006. 7. ORDER 10.08.2006 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: It has been submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 that counter is being filed in the course of the day. List again on 17.8.2006. 8. ORDER 17.08.2006 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Office is to state as to whether there is any order from the Hon'ble Court to issue notice to respondent no. 2. List again on 5.9.2006. 9. ORDER 15.09.2006 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Counter has been already filed by respondent No.1. Therefore, list before the Hon'ble Court. 10. ORDER 13.10.2006 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Let this matter come up in the month of January, 2007 because by then it is expected that the Screening Committee which is considering the proposal in favour of the petitioner may be able to take a decision. 11. ORDER 05.01.2007 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: In view of the letter circulated, put up after eight weeks. 12. ORDER 19.03.2007 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: List after six weeks. 13. ORDER 11.05.2007 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the matter be placed after summer vacation. 14. ORDER 11.07.2007 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Adjourned by two weeks. 15.ORDER 05.10.2007 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: List before a Bench of which Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dalveer Bhandari is not a member. 16.ORDER 11.01.2008 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Place the petition after three months. In the meantime, the Screening Committee is directed to decide the matter. 17. ORDER 16.04.2008 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Two weeks' time is allowed to the respondent- Corporation to file additional documents. 18. ORDER 05.10.2009 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Prayer for grant of time to file rejoinder affidavit is rejected. However, it will be open to the parties to file additional documents within four weeks. Place the petition thereafter under the heading "After Notice Matters". 19.ORDER 03.11.2009 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Perused the letter. The case is adjourned by two weeks, as prayed for. 20. ORDER 16.11.2009 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Put up after eight weeks. In the meantime, further additional documents and rejoinder affidavit shall be filed. 21. ORDER 15.01.2010 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following order: Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition as he would like to move the High Court. Permission granted. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sandeep Jalan.
Janhit Manch, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai- 400056.
Email- legallyspeaking.jalan@gmail.com
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
a PATHBREAKING LANDMARK decision- FOOD TO LIQUOR
Amidst grave fall in food production and phenomenal rise in food prices, the govt of India has taken a path breaking landmark decision that they NOW will make liquor from food. The govt of India now must also pass a legislation, for compulsory consumption of liquor, one Liter, minimum, by every adult Indian. http://foodtoalcohol.wordpress.com/concerns/marathi-home/
http://foodtoalcohol.wordpress.com/
THIS PATHBREAKING LANDMARK DECISION WILL GO A LONG WAY IN OUR QUEST FOR SECURING AGGRAVATED MISERY TO THE MASSES MARGINALIZED PEOPLE OF INDIA.
A political actor recently quoted as saying those who oppose this path breaking landmark decision of making liquor from food should be “caned”. In my view, whoever opposes this path breaking landmark decision should be given capital punishment.
Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people..." In the democratic settings of us, the Press is given special Space to accommodate voice of common man when he allege that men at power is doing undesirable acts. Mr Editors....thus we turn at you.
http://foodtoalcohol.wordpress.com/
THIS PATHBREAKING LANDMARK DECISION WILL GO A LONG WAY IN OUR QUEST FOR SECURING AGGRAVATED MISERY TO THE MASSES MARGINALIZED PEOPLE OF INDIA.
A political actor recently quoted as saying those who oppose this path breaking landmark decision of making liquor from food should be “caned”. In my view, whoever opposes this path breaking landmark decision should be given capital punishment.
Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people..." In the democratic settings of us, the Press is given special Space to accommodate voice of common man when he allege that men at power is doing undesirable acts. Mr Editors....thus we turn at you.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
...the govt of India is riding on unguided sentiments of people of India....
To,
The Prime Minister of India,
PRESS TRUST OF INDIA:
GOVT MULLS MAKING MOLESTATION NON BAILABLE OFFENCE: http://www.ptinews.com/news/448264_Govt-mulls-making-molestation-non-bailable-offence
In the light of development that has took place in Ruchika case, it is heartening, with reluctance, to see that Govt of India is alive to issues that shock the conscience of the society. Although the govt of India is toying with the idea of making molestation a non bailable offence, square attention deserves to be given- How to identify, beforehand, instances of false and blackmailed complaints.
You will be destroying the entire fabric of the society. Man and boys may then be subject to untold harassment of false charges of molestation. Moreover, you know our police well. You will literally destroy entire life of a man if you put him behind the bar on mere allegation of false and black mailed complaint that is simply unavoidable. That man is then permanently be tagged as molester irrespective of any outcome.
Moreover, the govt and the Police alike, have turned a blind eye to a law settled by Supreme Court in JOGINDER KUMAR CASE IN 1994. In this case the Supreme Court has to the extent nearly abolished the colonial practice of arresting people on the basis of bailable or non bailable of offences. The SC in this landmark judgment has given due importance to the dignity of human life and to its liberty while at the same time maintaining a just balance between individual freedom and security of the society. The SC has in this Judgment framed guidelines as under which circumstances a person can be arrested, irrespective of cognizable or non cognizable offence, irrespective of offence is bailable or non bailable. http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/06/final-word-on-law-of-arrests.html
Sir, does the non bailability of offences has reduced the occurrence of non bailable offences ? The pressing crisis that we are facing today, as far as, criminality and corruption is concerned, is that the rich, powerful and influential indulge in criminality with impunity and then they influence the investigation with impunity. You know well who comprises the rich, powerful and influential. They will manage bail from our courts anyway.
SIR- YOU NEED TO ADDRESS AS HOW THESE INFLUENTIAL OFFENDERS OF LAW CAN BE PREVENTED FROM INFLUENCING THE INVESTIGATION. THE ANSWER LIES IN ANOTHER LANDMARK Supreme Court (SC)JUDGMENT GIVEN IN PRAKASH SINGH CASE IN 2006 FOR COMPLETE REVAMPING OF POLICE MACHINARY. THE JUDGMENT TOLD TO SEPARATE LAW AND ORDER FROM INVESTIGATION.
NO STATE GOVT IS SHOWING ANY SIGN OF IMPLEMENTING THESE REFORMS.
It is a conventional misleading idea to have stricter laws to deal with a pressing issue of this. However, Structural changes , as directed by SC in Prakah singh case, to separate investigation from law and order, is required to have desired results.
Does the non bailability of offences has deterred the potential offenders of law. I am constrained to speak- the govt of India is riding on the unguided sentiments of people of India, the mass audience, who will hardly understand and appreciate the consequences of making this molestation a non bailable offence.
--
iN APPRECIATION,
Sandeep Jalan
Janhit Manch, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai- 400056.
Also Pls find:-
LINK TO INDIAN CITIZENS POCKET GUIDE TO POLICE LAWS:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/04/indian-citizens-pocket-guide-to-police.html
LINK TO PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS: GUIDELINES, PRINCIPLES, PROCEDURE:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-to-file-writ-petition-or-pil-writ.html
LINK TO: RESOLVE OFFICIALS NEGLIGENCE / ILLEGALITIES BY SERVING NOTICE U/S 80 OF CPC 1908:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/09/resolve-public-officials-negligence.html
LINK TO SOME KEY LAW POINTS: PRE-LITIGATION, DURING-LITIGATION:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/08/invaluable-key-points-for-present.html
BEING EMPOWERED IS FUN. RTI IS FUN: http://rti.gov.in/
May visit my web site at http://www.pilwrit.org/
The Prime Minister of India,
PRESS TRUST OF INDIA:
GOVT MULLS MAKING MOLESTATION NON BAILABLE OFFENCE: http://www.ptinews.com/news/448264_Govt-mulls-making-molestation-non-bailable-offence
In the light of development that has took place in Ruchika case, it is heartening, with reluctance, to see that Govt of India is alive to issues that shock the conscience of the society. Although the govt of India is toying with the idea of making molestation a non bailable offence, square attention deserves to be given- How to identify, beforehand, instances of false and blackmailed complaints.
You will be destroying the entire fabric of the society. Man and boys may then be subject to untold harassment of false charges of molestation. Moreover, you know our police well. You will literally destroy entire life of a man if you put him behind the bar on mere allegation of false and black mailed complaint that is simply unavoidable. That man is then permanently be tagged as molester irrespective of any outcome.
Moreover, the govt and the Police alike, have turned a blind eye to a law settled by Supreme Court in JOGINDER KUMAR CASE IN 1994. In this case the Supreme Court has to the extent nearly abolished the colonial practice of arresting people on the basis of bailable or non bailable of offences. The SC in this landmark judgment has given due importance to the dignity of human life and to its liberty while at the same time maintaining a just balance between individual freedom and security of the society. The SC has in this Judgment framed guidelines as under which circumstances a person can be arrested, irrespective of cognizable or non cognizable offence, irrespective of offence is bailable or non bailable. http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/06/final-word-on-law-of-arrests.html
Sir, does the non bailability of offences has reduced the occurrence of non bailable offences ? The pressing crisis that we are facing today, as far as, criminality and corruption is concerned, is that the rich, powerful and influential indulge in criminality with impunity and then they influence the investigation with impunity. You know well who comprises the rich, powerful and influential. They will manage bail from our courts anyway.
SIR- YOU NEED TO ADDRESS AS HOW THESE INFLUENTIAL OFFENDERS OF LAW CAN BE PREVENTED FROM INFLUENCING THE INVESTIGATION. THE ANSWER LIES IN ANOTHER LANDMARK Supreme Court (SC)JUDGMENT GIVEN IN PRAKASH SINGH CASE IN 2006 FOR COMPLETE REVAMPING OF POLICE MACHINARY. THE JUDGMENT TOLD TO SEPARATE LAW AND ORDER FROM INVESTIGATION.
NO STATE GOVT IS SHOWING ANY SIGN OF IMPLEMENTING THESE REFORMS.
It is a conventional misleading idea to have stricter laws to deal with a pressing issue of this. However, Structural changes , as directed by SC in Prakah singh case, to separate investigation from law and order, is required to have desired results.
Does the non bailability of offences has deterred the potential offenders of law. I am constrained to speak- the govt of India is riding on the unguided sentiments of people of India, the mass audience, who will hardly understand and appreciate the consequences of making this molestation a non bailable offence.
--
iN APPRECIATION,
Sandeep Jalan
Janhit Manch, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai- 400056.
Also Pls find:-
LINK TO INDIAN CITIZENS POCKET GUIDE TO POLICE LAWS:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/04/indian-citizens-pocket-guide-to-police.html
LINK TO PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS: GUIDELINES, PRINCIPLES, PROCEDURE:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-to-file-writ-petition-or-pil-writ.html
LINK TO: RESOLVE OFFICIALS NEGLIGENCE / ILLEGALITIES BY SERVING NOTICE U/S 80 OF CPC 1908:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/09/resolve-public-officials-negligence.html
LINK TO SOME KEY LAW POINTS: PRE-LITIGATION, DURING-LITIGATION:
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/08/invaluable-key-points-for-present.html
BEING EMPOWERED IS FUN. RTI IS FUN: http://rti.gov.in/
May visit my web site at http://www.pilwrit.org/
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Judges are not at liberty to deny legal dues of citizenry....the mercies of law......
Regarding: When Bombay High Court refuses to regularize unauthorized construction and orders demolition of 17 floors of Gourav gagan in kandivali, mumbai, India.
http://www.3dsyndication.com/showarticle.aspx?displaytype=n&nid=DNMUM157482
The Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar of Bombay High court in a case before it, is quoted as saying- “......if they are carried away by the brochure and public advertisements, and do not make such inquiries, then, they cannot turn around and seek asistance of the court”. It is highly unwarranted when courts attend citizenry like as irresponsible childrens supposedly to seek undeserving claims. Under no circumstances, citizenry can assume that courts are forum to legalize negligence.We the citizenry knock the doors of court to enforce our rights, our dues, constitutional and statutory. The courts cannot give what is not our dues and this we the citizenry know well. Courts are merely a platform to claim our dues.
As emphatically subscribed by Bombay High Court Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar that consumers are empowered enough to check illegality, I say- the moot question is not if a consumer is empowered to check illegality, the pertinent question in my view is- Is it the duty of a consumer to check illegality of construction ? My certain view- Definitely Not.
The consumer, (the citizenry) has, for to check illegality has employed the local body, i.e. Mumbai Municipal corporation in the instant case to check illegality and irregularity of any kind. Moreover, it is not exaggeration if I were to say that it is this consumer who is paying salary to these people of local bodies to check illegalities. Then, why is this consumer is obliged to check himself when he has lawfully entrusted this work to local body, although he may be empowered to do the same. I may not exercise my rights when I have lawfully entrusted someone to take care of my rights. There should not be any prejudice cause to me if I do not exercise my rughts then.
Moreover, it can safely be presumed the legality of a transaction of immovable property when the men employed to check illegalities doesnt declare illegality of any kind during construction of building. Otherwise we will be encouraging further callous behavior of 'State men' incharge of checking illegality for he is not held accountable for his failing in his duty to check illegality and furthermore he is empowered to take action against the innocent buyer.
The news report says- during routine inspection, the BMC officer discovered that builder has shooted 24 floors against permission of 7. And the BMC officer thus takes us all for FOOLS that illegal 17 floors were shooted overnight. I don’t know if the Bombay High Court Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar chose to ask BMC if those illegal 17 floors were shooted overnight.
Bombay High Court Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar has been quoted as saying: Legalising building fraud will lead to disaster. The observation statement of Chief Justice assume sweeping significance. In my view, by this statement the court say that- since local body, i.e. BMC has a traditional practise of turning a blind eye to unauthorized constructions, and in the circumstances, if courts are not very strict while giving/denying permission to regularize unauthorized constructions, there will be all round haphazrd illegal constructions.
A division bench of chief justice Swatanter Kumar and justice SC Dharmadhikari said in their 123-page order that the planning authority had to consider various factors such as infrastructure, congestion, water supply, and roads before regularising illegal constructions against payment of a penalty. "If there is an increasing pressure and burden on the existing facilities and amenities then the whole system would collapse resulting in large-scale inconvenience." Can it be said that in all the permissions so far given to regularize has not caused pressure and burden to the existing facilities and amenities in the immediate neighborhood. It is akin as judges telling that permission for authorizing illegal constructions should only be given to those structures which do not increases “allowed weight of the building”. But then, is it possible to have a situation when you allow additional unauthorize structure and yet you “maintain weight of the structure”.
Although section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act provides for regularisation of unauthorised structures, the court said that indiscriminate regularisation through TDR or FSI can have "disastrous consequences". "Regularization of unauthorised constructions will have to be permitted on a case-to-case basis," the court ruled. The laws are made and accordingly having regard to existing conditions of facilities, permission is given for building certain number of floors. While any single permission is given for regularization of unauthorized construction, the consequence of increasing pressure and burden on the existing facilities and amenities in the immediate neighborhood is inevitable. Is it possible to have on one hand authorizing illegal construction and on the other hand presuming that such authorization will not have consequences and burden to the existing facilities and amenities.
In my view, in the light of submissions made by the Senior Advocate of the Petitioners, if there is a provision in law to remedy the situation by arranging the TDR and paying penalty, this mercy of law cannot be denied to the deemed innocent flat buyers. The purpose of existence of any law can never be lose sight of. This provision has apparently come into being to protect innocent flat buyers who were deceived by developer and are victim of negligent officials of local bodies who were to check all illegalities connected with the construction.
It is not permissible for local body to have first turn a blind eye to unauthorized constructions and then deny the mercies of legal entitlements available to remedy the situation and rather assume unguided power to choose at their whims, to whom permission for regurarization should be given.
In the present Constitutional democratic set up we all Indians live in, the Laws are made and passed by the Parliament and the State Legislatures and these laws represents the wishes and ambitions of we the people of India. It is the Prime responsibility of the Govts and its various instrumentalities to implement and administer the Laws so made by the Parliament and the State Legislatures.
It is even not open to the Supreme Court and the High Courts to act or give judgments in deviation from established laws. All Statutes or Laws so made and passed by Legislatures is to remedy the ill that has plagued the society. All Statutes comes into being with some policy and objective to be achieved. Every statutory provision in a Statute comes into being after due deliberation and every letter of the law is employed with great caution and care and with some purpose.
It is suffice if one merely seek the bare observance of the letter of the law and the spirit inherent in the letter of the law. As everyone says that we live in a Rule of Law society. What we really mean by Rule of Law is that the Law which is established must be observed in all the circumstances except in cases where the Law itself is absurd and or arbitrary. Every letter of the Law must be observed with due respect, unless the same is declared by the competent court of Jurisdiction as manifestly arbitrary and or absurd.
A great deal of confusion & doubt has come to set in our minds when judges refuse citizenry of their due legal entitlements. The false impression then we earn & import is- Judges & courts are empowered to refuse citizenry their due legal entitlement. To me it is not small impression that if taking roots in our minds.. The denial to mercies of law, i.e. denial to avail the benefits of established laws only leads to violation of article 14 of the constitution of India.
Moreover, Should I not invoke Promissory Estoppel of all laws against all Public Servants including Judges for they voluntarily took Oath of allegiance to Rule of Law.
--
--
--
--
iN APPRECIATION,
Sandeep Jalan
Janhit Manch, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai- 400056.
Distinguished Indian women and men of time fought for 200 hundred years to secure freedom and this freedom is taken away in minutes at the mere pretence of bailability of offences. However in 1994 SC sets LANDMARK guidelines for Police to effect ARREST.
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/06/final-word-on-law-of-arrests.html
"Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people..." In the democratic settings of us, the Press is given special Space to accomodate voice of common man when he allege that men at power is doing undesirable acts. Mr Editors....thus we turn at you....
May visit my web site at http://www.pilwrit.org/
http://www.3dsyndication.com/showarticle.aspx?displaytype=n&nid=DNMUM157482
The Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar of Bombay High court in a case before it, is quoted as saying- “......if they are carried away by the brochure and public advertisements, and do not make such inquiries, then, they cannot turn around and seek asistance of the court”. It is highly unwarranted when courts attend citizenry like as irresponsible childrens supposedly to seek undeserving claims. Under no circumstances, citizenry can assume that courts are forum to legalize negligence.We the citizenry knock the doors of court to enforce our rights, our dues, constitutional and statutory. The courts cannot give what is not our dues and this we the citizenry know well. Courts are merely a platform to claim our dues.
As emphatically subscribed by Bombay High Court Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar that consumers are empowered enough to check illegality, I say- the moot question is not if a consumer is empowered to check illegality, the pertinent question in my view is- Is it the duty of a consumer to check illegality of construction ? My certain view- Definitely Not.
The consumer, (the citizenry) has, for to check illegality has employed the local body, i.e. Mumbai Municipal corporation in the instant case to check illegality and irregularity of any kind. Moreover, it is not exaggeration if I were to say that it is this consumer who is paying salary to these people of local bodies to check illegalities. Then, why is this consumer is obliged to check himself when he has lawfully entrusted this work to local body, although he may be empowered to do the same. I may not exercise my rights when I have lawfully entrusted someone to take care of my rights. There should not be any prejudice cause to me if I do not exercise my rughts then.
Moreover, it can safely be presumed the legality of a transaction of immovable property when the men employed to check illegalities doesnt declare illegality of any kind during construction of building. Otherwise we will be encouraging further callous behavior of 'State men' incharge of checking illegality for he is not held accountable for his failing in his duty to check illegality and furthermore he is empowered to take action against the innocent buyer.
The news report says- during routine inspection, the BMC officer discovered that builder has shooted 24 floors against permission of 7. And the BMC officer thus takes us all for FOOLS that illegal 17 floors were shooted overnight. I don’t know if the Bombay High Court Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar chose to ask BMC if those illegal 17 floors were shooted overnight.
Bombay High Court Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar has been quoted as saying: Legalising building fraud will lead to disaster. The observation statement of Chief Justice assume sweeping significance. In my view, by this statement the court say that- since local body, i.e. BMC has a traditional practise of turning a blind eye to unauthorized constructions, and in the circumstances, if courts are not very strict while giving/denying permission to regularize unauthorized constructions, there will be all round haphazrd illegal constructions.
A division bench of chief justice Swatanter Kumar and justice SC Dharmadhikari said in their 123-page order that the planning authority had to consider various factors such as infrastructure, congestion, water supply, and roads before regularising illegal constructions against payment of a penalty. "If there is an increasing pressure and burden on the existing facilities and amenities then the whole system would collapse resulting in large-scale inconvenience." Can it be said that in all the permissions so far given to regularize has not caused pressure and burden to the existing facilities and amenities in the immediate neighborhood. It is akin as judges telling that permission for authorizing illegal constructions should only be given to those structures which do not increases “allowed weight of the building”. But then, is it possible to have a situation when you allow additional unauthorize structure and yet you “maintain weight of the structure”.
Although section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act provides for regularisation of unauthorised structures, the court said that indiscriminate regularisation through TDR or FSI can have "disastrous consequences". "Regularization of unauthorised constructions will have to be permitted on a case-to-case basis," the court ruled. The laws are made and accordingly having regard to existing conditions of facilities, permission is given for building certain number of floors. While any single permission is given for regularization of unauthorized construction, the consequence of increasing pressure and burden on the existing facilities and amenities in the immediate neighborhood is inevitable. Is it possible to have on one hand authorizing illegal construction and on the other hand presuming that such authorization will not have consequences and burden to the existing facilities and amenities.
In my view, in the light of submissions made by the Senior Advocate of the Petitioners, if there is a provision in law to remedy the situation by arranging the TDR and paying penalty, this mercy of law cannot be denied to the deemed innocent flat buyers. The purpose of existence of any law can never be lose sight of. This provision has apparently come into being to protect innocent flat buyers who were deceived by developer and are victim of negligent officials of local bodies who were to check all illegalities connected with the construction.
It is not permissible for local body to have first turn a blind eye to unauthorized constructions and then deny the mercies of legal entitlements available to remedy the situation and rather assume unguided power to choose at their whims, to whom permission for regurarization should be given.
In the present Constitutional democratic set up we all Indians live in, the Laws are made and passed by the Parliament and the State Legislatures and these laws represents the wishes and ambitions of we the people of India. It is the Prime responsibility of the Govts and its various instrumentalities to implement and administer the Laws so made by the Parliament and the State Legislatures.
It is even not open to the Supreme Court and the High Courts to act or give judgments in deviation from established laws. All Statutes or Laws so made and passed by Legislatures is to remedy the ill that has plagued the society. All Statutes comes into being with some policy and objective to be achieved. Every statutory provision in a Statute comes into being after due deliberation and every letter of the law is employed with great caution and care and with some purpose.
It is suffice if one merely seek the bare observance of the letter of the law and the spirit inherent in the letter of the law. As everyone says that we live in a Rule of Law society. What we really mean by Rule of Law is that the Law which is established must be observed in all the circumstances except in cases where the Law itself is absurd and or arbitrary. Every letter of the Law must be observed with due respect, unless the same is declared by the competent court of Jurisdiction as manifestly arbitrary and or absurd.
A great deal of confusion & doubt has come to set in our minds when judges refuse citizenry of their due legal entitlements. The false impression then we earn & import is- Judges & courts are empowered to refuse citizenry their due legal entitlement. To me it is not small impression that if taking roots in our minds.. The denial to mercies of law, i.e. denial to avail the benefits of established laws only leads to violation of article 14 of the constitution of India.
Moreover, Should I not invoke Promissory Estoppel of all laws against all Public Servants including Judges for they voluntarily took Oath of allegiance to Rule of Law.
--
--
--
--
iN APPRECIATION,
Sandeep Jalan
Janhit Manch, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai- 400056.
Distinguished Indian women and men of time fought for 200 hundred years to secure freedom and this freedom is taken away in minutes at the mere pretence of bailability of offences. However in 1994 SC sets LANDMARK guidelines for Police to effect ARREST.
http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/06/final-word-on-law-of-arrests.html
"Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people..." In the democratic settings of us, the Press is given special Space to accomodate voice of common man when he allege that men at power is doing undesirable acts. Mr Editors....thus we turn at you....
May visit my web site at http://www.pilwrit.org/
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
a dedicated Channel for Legal Deliberation and Reform..
Respected members of Campaign for Judicial Reforms & Accountability,
With Sanskaar Channel, Ramdev Baba brought his concept of Yoga on International geography.
Successfully.
Shouldn’t we be doing it too. To spread legal awareness, to check Judicial misconduct and corruption.
Please give a considered thought......
--
--
iN APPRECIATION,
Sandeep Jalan [B.Com, LLB]
With Sanskaar Channel, Ramdev Baba brought his concept of Yoga on International geography.
Successfully.
Shouldn’t we be doing it too. To spread legal awareness, to check Judicial misconduct and corruption.
Please give a considered thought......
--
--
iN APPRECIATION,
Sandeep Jalan [B.Com, LLB]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)