WHERE WE HAVE BEEN WRONGED IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF FUCTIONINGS OF THE HIGH COURT

MULTIPLICITY OF DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION VICTIMIZATION OF THE DRIVER POSTED AT JUDGESHIP BARREILLY EXERCISED BY AT LEAST FOUR JUDGES OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

1.      That this is the first writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned orders passed on 07.09.2012 and order dated 05.11.2011 passed by rejecting the review petition and having affirmation to the order passed in the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner before the administrative judges respectively only to the extent of withholding the back wages of the petitioner on the post of the driver in the judgeship of District Bareilly by the administrative judge even after the reinstatement of the petitioner on the said post

2.      That by means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order to the extent only for withholding the back wages amenable to the petitioner from 24.11.2006 to 05.11.2011 in pursuance of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court (Administrative Side) passed on 07.09.2012 by an order bearing no. 13655 (7-A/Admin(D):Sec: Dated: Allahabad ) 07.09.2012 passed by the joint registrar (1), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejecting the review petition of the petitioner by the administrative judge of judgeship of District Bareilly rejecting the application / review petition filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority and thereby making an affirmation to the order passed on 05.11.2012 having the decision of the administrative judge Bareilly dated 18.10.2011. Both these orders are challenged by the petitioner as these orders have been passed in defiance of the judgement passed on 18.11.2009 setting aside the order of the dismissal of the petitioner from the service passed on 24.11.2006 in writ petition no. 2641 of 2007 filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order as well as in violation of the RULE 54 of Financial Handbook, Vol. II Part-2 to 4 of the Financial Handbook dealing with  the withholding of the back wages in case of reinstatement of the petitioner in appeal decided on 05.11.2011 by this Hon’ble Court.

3.      That the petitioner was appointed in the judgeship of District Bareilly on 11.12.1989 and since then he had been working as the senior most driver in the judgeship of Bareilly without having any complaints and departmental proceedings initiated against him, except in passing of an order by then District Judge, Bareilly on the ground of the alleged misconduct of transferring the petitioner along with his car to the judgeship of Shahjahanpur by an order dated 24.11.2006 which was already set aside by the  judgment dated 18.11.2009 passed in writ petition no. 2641/2007 Anis Ahmed v/s State of U.P. and others. It is submitted that the order of dismissal of the petitioner was passed wholly without jurisdiction and in gross violation of the principle of natural justice.

4.      That the petitioner fell ill on 20.09.2006 and therefore he submitted an application for grant of the casual leave at about half past 11’o clock in the morning and came back to his house for taking the rest and medical treatment for his ailment. He consulted Dr. D. P. Bharadwaj in District Hospital, Bareilly who advised him to go on complete bed rest for 2 weeks and as such the petitioner submitted application for grant of the medical leave on 22.09.2006 through speed-post along with the prescription dated 21.09.2006 of Dr. D. P. Bharadwaj posted in District Hospital, Bareilly.

5.      That on 04.10.2006, on being advised by the doctor to have another rest for 2 more weeks on the prescription slip of 21.09.2006 issued from the District Hospital, Bareilly, the extension of the medical leave was further sought from on the ground of medical prescription again on 05.10.2006 by the petitioner.

6.      That the petitioner could not get any relief from the treatment at Bareilly, and as such on 19.10.2006 the petitioner requested to seek permission to leave the District headquarters and to be treated at Ujihani district Badaun, at his home place where he was given treatment at Community Health Center from 19.10.2006 to 18.11.2006 by Dr. S. P. Singh who diagnosed the petitioner suffering from Typhoid fever with Broncho-pulmonary pneumonitis and was successfully treated by issuance of the fitness certificate dated 18.11.2006 to join his duties on 20.11.2006 as 19.11.2006 was Sunday.

7.      That this application of the fitness was personally handed over to Central Nazir along with the Medical Certificate but since the petitioner had already approached this Hon’ble Court by filing the writ petition no. 56513 of 2006 along with another driver who was also subjected to be transferred from judgeship of District Bareilly to Shahjahanpur on 20.09.2006 itself in pursuance of some letter issued by the registry of Allahabad High Court on 16.09.2006 and the said writ petition was decided 12.10.2006 to decide the representation dated 10.10.2006 and as such the District Judge, Bareilly did not sanctioned the medical leave and decided the representation dated 10.10.2006 by passing order of termination from service on 24.11.2006 itself. The representation filed against the transfer order dated 20.09.2006 was rejected and the termination order was passed by the District Judge, Bareilly holding therein that since the transfer order was not complied and as such the termination order has been passed for non-compliance of the said transfer order just after 5 days of submitting the application along with the fitness report dated 18.11.2006 after being recovered from his ailment of Typhoid fever with Broncho-pulmonary pneumonitis .

8.      That in this regard the petitioner may further submit that the transfer order was passed by selecting the senior most drivers of the judgeship of Bareilly wherein the petitioner was the senior most driver while the other two drivers were ranked at Sr. No. 3 and Sr. No. 5 and on their joining to judgeship of Shahjahanpur they were placed as the junior most driver and it was not within the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Bareilly to transfer his subordinate employees under his judgeship to another judgeship under the provision of Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Court’s inferior establishments Rules 1955 wherein the individual judgeship is defined under Rule 3 of the aforesaid rules. The District Judge can only transfer the subordinate employee within the judgeship of the District Judge concerned and not otherwise.

9.      That the aforesaid action of the District Judge having termination of the services of the petitioner on 24.11.2006 was challenged by the petitioner in writ petition no. 2641 of 2007 wherein the aforesaid writ petition was allowed on 18.11.2009 having setting aside the order passed on 24.11.2006 by the District Judge, Bareilly to hold the inquiry against the petitioner if deemed proper and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law.

10.  That as soon as the order of this Hon’ble High Court was served on 03.12.2009 before the learned District Judge, he immediately started the judicial enquiry no. 07/09 against the petitioner on which one Shri. P. K. Srivastava, special judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was conducted in an arbitrary manner without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to defend himself as the action of the District Judge to hold the enquiry afresh was in itself against the settled principles of the safeguard provided to the confirmed employee and were devoid of any basis as per the settled case law reported in AIR 1974 SC 455 , AIR 1978 SC 597, JT 1993(3) SC 617, JT 1998(6) SC 464 as well as in view of 1991 suppl.(1) SCC 504,1991 ,SCC (L&S) 998 as well as 1991 SCC(L&S) 421in respect of the proprietary and competence and the decision making process applicable to the confirm employee in the government service.

11.  That the petitioner challenged the order passed on 20.05.2010 dismissing the services of the petitioner without even caring for the reason of the absence of the petitioner on account of his being suffering from Typhoid fever with Broncho-pulmonary pneumonitis by filing a departmental appeal under Rule 7(2)(b) of the U.P. Subordinate Courts staff (punishment and appeal) rules 1976 and the Hon’ble administrative judge was pleased to allow the said appeal on 18.10.2011 having communication of the said order being made on 05.11.2011 through the District Judge, Bareilly in part and directed reinstatement of the petitioner by withholding his two increments permanently but  simultaneously also withholding the back wages from 24.11.2006 to 05.11.2011without having its effect being counted towards service.

12.  That the Hon’ble administrative judge has not considered even that the order dated 24.11.2006 was set aside in the writ petition no. 2641 of 2007 on 18.11.2009 and as such when there was no existence of the order passed on 24.11.2006 still remained in force, the withholding of the salary of the petitioner from 24.11.2006 till 05.11.2011 is wholly without jurisdiction.

13.  That it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Hon’ble administrative judge that the learned District Judge, Bareilly had committed the manipulation in passing the anti-dated orders which was reflected in the representation submitted before the humble authority of the administrative judge. It has been submitted that the order was passed by this Hon’ble Court on 30.10.2006 in another matter in respect of the direction contained in the writ petition filed by another driver namely Rakesh Kumar whose representation dated 27.10.2006 filed against his transfer from judgeship Bareilly to District Shahjahanpur by Sh.S.K.Pandey, then district judge, Bareilly , was directed to be decided. Surprisingly, the learned District Judge decided to terminate the services of Sri Rakesh Kumar on 27.11.2006, but merely to justify his pre-medicated order of termination from services. Shri S. K. Pandey disposed off the representation of Rakesh Kumar on 27.10.2006, even before passing of the order in the writ petition by this Hon’ble Court on 30.10.2006.

14.  That the application for grant of the leave which was accompanied by the medical certificates were also rejected by the anti-dated orders passed by then District Judge, Bareilly in order to demonstrate the justification for termination of the services of the petitioner by treating him as deliberate absence from duty while the petitioner was suffering from illness of Typhoid fever with Broncho-pulmonary pneumonitis during the period from 20.09.2006 to 18.11.2006 and the medical prescription from the government hospital were submitted to establish the fact of the genuine ailment but the learned District Judge had acted arbitrarily and discriminatory in choosing the name of the petitioner for transfer to another judgeship and to become the junior most driver in the said district despite the fact that the petitioner was the senior most driver in  District Bareilly.

15.  That in this manner once the administrative judge has arrived to the conclusion that the punishment given to the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges and if the Hon’ble administrative judge had already imposed the minor punishment by depriving the petitioner from two increments permanently, the double punishment given to the petitioner on the same charges in respect of withholding the salary from 24.11.2006 to 05.11.2011 is violative of the principle of the equity on the Doctrine of being violative on account of double jeopardize which is unconstitutional and violative of Article 20 (2) read with Article 14, 16, 21 and 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.

16.  That apart from this as submitted earlier that the question of entitlement to the back wages on the reinstatement of the petitioner in service had to be decided in accordance with the provision of Rule 54 Vol.II Part 2 to 4 of the Financial Handbook wherein in such type of the category of cases when the punishment order was modified by the appellate authority in appeal, the petitioner became entitled to receive his pay and allowances for the period when he was subjected to victimized by imposing the major punishment, but was exonerated of the major punishment of the dismissal/termination to the minor punishment of the loss of two increments permanently for the rest of the services as per sub rule 6 and 7 of the aforesaid rules.

17.  That the Hon’ble Appellate authority on one hand had taken the stand that the period of the absence shall be treated as the period spent on duty while withholding of the salary without assigning any reason and thereby modifying even the judgment delivered on 18.11.2009 in the writ petition no. 2641/2007 which became final between the parties in which the administrative side of the High Court was in itself the party to the said proceedings and since the finality is attributed to the foresaid judgment withholding of the salary from 20.09.2006 up to 18.11.2009 was in itself derogatory to the orders passed between the parties.

18.  That the petitioner filed the review petition stating all such facts before the Hon’ble administrative judge who has completely overlooked to all such aspects of the matter and had not dealt with even the provisions of Rule 54 of the Financial Handbooks in dealing with the question of entitlement of the petitioner for grant of the entire back wages which could have only been forfeited after giving an opportunity of hearing on the substantial question of law submitted herein above before this Hon’ble Court in the present writ petition.

19.  That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. M. Gopal Krishna Naidu v/s  State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1968 pg 240 had laid down that, “consideration under the rule FR 54 ”, “depending upon as it does on facts and circumstances in their entirety and passing an order on the basis of the factual finding arrived at from such facts and circumstances and such an order resulting in pecuniary loss to government servant must be held to be an objective rather than the subjective function”. “The very nature of the function implies the duty to act judicially”. “In such a case, if an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed is not afforded, as admittedly it was done in the present case the order is liable to be struck down as invalid on the ground that it is one breach of the principle of Natural Justice”.

20.  That the petitioner has further been advised to state that the order passed on 05.11.2011 to the extent of forfeiture of his pay and allowances for the period intervening the dismissal and reinstatement in service is totally invalid and unsustainable within the eye of law.

21.  That acting upon the directive issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above noted case of N. M. Gopal Krishna Naidu v/s  State of Madhya Pradesh, the government of Uttar Pradesh issued the government orders no.17/1/1970-Niukti(3) dated 29.11.1973 followed by the other government orders issued on 13.01.1983 regarding withholding of the applicant’s back wages, which according to the aforesaid government orders is illegal and invalid.

22.  That in case no payment or lesser payment of the applicant’s back wages was proposed it was mandatory to give a show cause notice to the petitioner and in case of giving lesser payment or forfeiture of the pay and other allowances, the same could have been done after considering the reply of the petitioner in furtherance of the show cause notice, which has not been done in the present case by the Appellate authority.

23.  That in this manner the petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate expectations which is akin to the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppels which prescribes that unequivocal promises creates the binding effect between the parties making them and such assurance may not be repudiated unilaterally, simply on the basis of the whims and fancies of the authority  and as such once it has been held that the order of dismissal of the petitioner is unsustainable by directing the petitioner in reinstatement in service, neither it was within the power and jurisdiction of then learned District Judge to complete the departmental inquiry without providing any opportunity of being heard and to submit the inquiry report and thereafter to pass again the order of dismissal when admittedly the petitioner applied for the grant of the medical leave and was supported with the medical prescription regarding his ailment of Typhoid fever with Broncho-pulmonary pneumonitis during the period from 20.09.2006 to 18.11.2006 and the medical prescription from the government hospital that has been taken into consideration by the Appellate authority in passing the order on 05.11.2011, but without granting the back wages during the period in which he has been deprived arbitrarily to discharge his duties due to the punishment found disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner by the Appellate authority.

24.  That the rejection of the review petition has been done without looking to the grounds and the evidence adduced in the review petition. None of the grounds including the legal aspect dealt with regarding ambit and the scope of FR 54 has been taken by the Hon’ble administrative judge in rejecting the review petition by the cryptic order that “the petitioner had never been exonerated on merit, punishment awarded is commensurate to the charges found proved” which is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. WHERE WE HAVE BEEN WRONGED IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF FUCTIONINGS OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGES INDULDGING THE INNOCENT CITIZEN TO DEALT WITH

Hangout with Shri Narendra Modi

FOR PUBLICITY SAKE Justice Mr. Markande Katzu, while criticizing the judgement of Supreme Court Of Pakistan

 FOR PUBLICITY SAKE Justice Mr. Markande Katzu, while criticizing the judgement of Supreme Court Of Pakistan on the issue of disqualification of prime Minister Mr. Yusuf Raza Gillani, had completely failed to appreciate the traditional power being exercised by the third pillar of Democracy in a country of Islamic Foundations. The play is done : the curtain drops slow falling to the prompter’s bell. A moment yet the actor stops and looks around, to say farewell. The approving audience gives him cheer. He bows to them and says his say. Yet down his cheek there falls a tear from him. This is the ending of his days.” “All the members of the court are considered as wounded, where justice is found wounded with inequity, and judges do not extract the dart of inequity from justice or remove its blot and destroy inequity, in other words where the innocent are not respected and the criminals are not punished.”               “A virtuous and just person should never enter a court and when he does so, he should speak the truth; he who holds his tongue on seeing injustice done, or speaks contrary to truth and justice is the greatest sinner.”                  “ All the persons in that court are dead, as it were, and none of them is alive, where justice is killed by inequity and truth by falsehood in presence of its courtiers.”                “ Justice destroyed, destroys, its destroyer; and justice preserved, preserves its preserver. Hence never destroy justice, lest being destroyed, it should destroy the destroyer of justice.”                     “ The learned regard him to be base caste who violates justice which gives all wealth and showers all blessings. Therefore no man should ever destroy justice.”                   “ In this world justice or righteousness alone is man’s friend that goes with him after death. All other things or companions part on the destruction of the body and he is detached from all company. But company of justice is never cut off.”  Justice Mr. Markande Katzu, appears to be unaware of prevailing corruption or he prefer to shield it, in order to get some alms by ruining the aspirations of other citizens, where in Smt Sonia Gandhi has taken over the command in the corruption oriented alien political system based upon Anglo Saxon Jurisprudence. It appears that when I listened the deliberation given by Justice Markande Katzu, in his key note speaker, while he was still the judge of Supreme Court in the Museum at Chandra Shekher Park, Allahabad, in the meeting presided over by Dr. Rama Shankar Dwevidi, Senior Advocate of Allahabad High Court praising the Aurangzeb as secular, while condemning Guru Teg Bahadur, Chandra Shekhar Azad, Sardar Bhagat Singh as Terrorist, I enquired from other guest and I was informed that “Katzu” is the purported identity of Muslims ancestors, as it was the also hidden identity of “Nehru” as both of them were fond of eating beef and pork, but as the citizen of slave oriented dynasty, we restrain to make any comment on his extempore remarks, as people will start criticizing him in open platform. I think that the time has come for expose of false identity and superimposed perception of dynasty rule left by the Britishers for our Nation. The supersession of three judges by Madame Indira Gandhi might been forgotten by Justice Mr. Markande Katzu.  Justice Mr. Markande Katzu, might have been completely forgotten the bold judgement delivered by Justice Sri Jag Mohan Lal Sinha , having disqualifying Madame Indira Gandhi on the charges of Corruption, as the standard of Judicial Institution and the Judges Occupying these posts are the vicious Circle of the refuse of scoundrel, as has been noticed from the time of induction of Mr. Nehru , Madame Indira Gandhi as the prime Minister of Our Nation.  Now the Judiciary of India is delivering the judgement legalizing the  Homo sexuality, Love Jihad for committing Rape of the minor girl to be converted to Muslims and there after being seduce in the Brothel having paradise  of Virgin girl  and Boys. Where  the Judges like Justice Mr. Markande Katzu,  leading to this Nation. I still remember the Complaint made by me as that of the ruthless behavior of  Justice Mr. Markande Katzu, when an inherently disqualified lady having the Charges of Corruption was allowed to ruin the Post of President of Zila Panchayat, despite her husband was the client of   Justice Mr. Markande Katzu, when he was in practice as Lawyer at Allahabad High Court. Fragrances are more hypnotic , music more inspiring , food tastes better and the sense of touch is more intense. This is all because of human Aura, which is extending an outlining the head and body through spiritual cult  in the form of twinkle blue, pale or gold and glitters through etheric world.  The justice is a very awful and majestic, It cannot be upheld by ignorance and non righteous person as the person who is not learned, untrained and block headed is never able to enforce the law with justice. Thus a wise man is only able to enforce the law in the strict sense. The decision of such judicial member may not be transgressed by any one.    

Even after 64 years of Independence, we are ignoring the statement made on 2nd September 1953 in the Parliament by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar himself, that: "People always keep on saying to me, so you are the maker of the Constitution. My answer is I was a hack. What I was asked to, I did much against my will. I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it. It does not suit anybody." India is a democratic country. Democracy means “Rule of Law”, governed by the people, for the people and through the people. Rule of Law means a system, which shall ensure that:  (i) no one, whoever he may be, is above the law; (ii) transparent and good governance; (iii) corruption free accountable bureaucracy; and (iv) Guaranteed expeditious remedies. This is an admitted fact that the major part of the Constitution of India is prepared basing upon the Government of India Act, 1935. Article 147 of the Constitution of India provides that “In this Chapter and in Chapter V of Part VI, references to any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution shall be construed as including references to any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935 (including any enactment amending or supplementing that Act), or any Order in Council or Order made there under, or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, or of any order made there under.” The aforesaid provisions has laid downs the conditions upon the Supreme Court and High Courts not to interpret anything beyond the scope of the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Government of India Act, 1935 was enacted by the British parliament, so amendment in it, obviously can be made by the British Parliament only, which means Article 147 is imposing a condition upon the Indian Judiciary to recognise any subsequent amendment, if passed by the British Parliament, thus virtually the sovereignty of Indian Judiciary with regards to interpretations are concerned, was tagged with the right of the British Parliament to amend the said Act. On the other hand provision does not provide any provision for amendment in Indian Independence Act 1947. The word “Council” is denotes to British Privy Council. Otherwise what is justification in Judgments pronounced by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court based on references from the Judgments of the British Privy Council. Government of India has respected the conditions with several British Companies to run their monopolistic Business in India, on the terms and conditions applicable prior to 15^th August 1947. There was a conditionality that the British Administrative system will continue at least for 50 years. This date expires on 15^th August 1997. This is a matter of the fact that on the said very day i.e. 15^th August 1997 the then Prime Minister of India Shri Inder Kumar Gujral announced from the Red Fort that about 3,000 Laws are become ineffective and defunct and would be removed. In fact, in 1942, British Government, through Crisp Mission, submitted its proposal for transfer of powers to Indians, which was refused outright by the people  -just before they had  given a call for quite India-, as because any proposal less than total freedom in the garb of the transfer of Powers was not acceptable to India. In fact, in 1942. An agreement was arises and emerges from such proposal, thus Interim Government headed by Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, as the prime Minister was formed. As per agreement in accordance with the said Cabinet Mission proposals, in or about July 1946 the Constituent Assembly was constituted through elections based on Religious Electoral Constituencies. On 6^th December 1946 the Constituent Assembly started its function. In accordance with the Cabinet Mission proposals the Constitution of India is prepared basing upon the Government of India Act 1935, for undivided India. But, under the British diplomacy, subsequently division of India was declared in June 1947, though this was not the part of the Cabinet Mission proposal of 1946. The reason and objective behind his appointment was very clear that he was aware of the mindset and value of the opposition from people or their true representatives. . As a result the proposal of the Cabinet Mission was got approved directly from the Congress Working Committee, without prior consultation with or knowledge of  the people representing Bharat varsh. When Indian Parliament on the night of 15^th August 1997, celebrated 50 years of so-called Freedom, British Queen Elizabeth was the main guest. Why was not Head of any other country? All Acts, enacted since (1860) 1861 including the Government of India Act 1935 were enacted in the name of reforms, but the basic object of the British Government behind enactment of such laws were to divide Indians to Rule India. It means People’s governance for the People and by the People. But, see how far this logic is working or workable in practical life and what are the experiences of the common men? In any democracy Parliament must be the highest democratic Platform. The Parliament’s first and foremost function should be to develop, improve, and enhance the good governance system, which can ensure good Governance at each and every level. But, what we are looking today is that the Indian Parliament is not serious at all to it’s such objective. The people of India may feel that the Political parties are responsible for such situation. But, according to me really they are not responsible for such grave situation. The root cause is elsewhere, as the democratic system provided by the Indian Constitution is not developed in consideration of the Indian Society, culture and its needs.     

          Each and every level of the governance, immense corruption with immunity, become important part of the system;

       Violation of Law with immunity is not a matter of surprise, for any one;

       Remedial measures are not easily available in respect of any matter of ill-governance, prevailing under nexus between the powerful politicians, bureaucrats and organised mafia;

       Immense economical, social and political exploitation is not at all a matter of concern for any politician; and

       From the whole of the country a single person from the common man can be identified who can justify that he has no grievances relates to governance at one or other level.

                                

A democracy cannot sustain for a long, unless followings principles are not translated in practice of the governance: -

1.       Truth shall prevails;

2.       Justice must be above all;

3.       Reins of the powers should be in the hands of the people;

4.       Unity, based on self reliance, self respect and self dependence amongst the people must be supreme objects;

5.       Each, including Constitutional Authority should be accountable before the law and system irrespective of his status or position;

6.       Justice delivery system should be easy, affordable and within reasonable time;

7.       In the Election mechanism value should be given to the Voters not to the Voting;

8.       Individualized Politics should not be allowed at any level and at any cost;

9.       Promotions in the Politicians should be based on experience, competency and performance;

10.   Distribution of the benefit of the progress and economical betterment of the country should be horizontal;

11.   System should not allow finding the ways to discriminate one to protect the powerful by skills or expertise.

12.     Each Individual should be kept away from the democratic process, if he does not obey these principles with the latter and sprit.

The Supreme Court of India shall admit a complaint after preliminary satisfaction, against the criminal misconduct by any person holds or holding the office of President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, any member of council of ministers in the Central Government, Chief Ministers of any State, and person holds or holding post with the or equal to rank of Cabinet Secretary; and Secretaries of the Central Government and Chief Secretary of any State, and after admit, it should be forwarded to a appropriate subordinate court for further criminal proceedings, determination and judgment. Such powers, privilege and immunities shall not cover the misuse of office of the member of the Parliament under gratification. Jurisdiction of court is like that of constructor of a building which has either perfection or many defects. The final word of posterity is dependent upon the skill and calibre of builder who may heartily desire to build up it like expert builders with architectonic virtues to amend or/and add some material both by method and uniformity and if the structure itself does not found ventilation for the want of windows and lake of sufficient light or other deficiency in the architecture, whatsoever, then to demolish the existing structure, only than we may blessed the amending hand as if the trumpet idea gives an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to the battle?        When any charge of the gratification is leveled against Prime Minister, His Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers or against any member of the Parliament, it shall be his duty to make requisite confessional statement before Apex Court, within seven days from the date of information against such charge otherwise he is liable to be declare as disqualified as a member of the Parliament. The Constitution of India and  its legal system is required to ensure removal of the Individual-controlled politics, in practical terms cast, religion, language, reason based politics, which has strengthened the policy of English Rulers to divide Indian to Rule the country and to get powers. Resulting thereby in every segment of the society politics-crime-nexus became part of the life.

                                                           Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Advocate, High Court, Allahabad

Ex Senior  Vice President, Advocate’s Association, Chamber No. 139,High Court, General Secretary ALL INDIA BAR ASSOCIATION                                                                          Trained Mediator of the first batch of Mediation Team                                                                    Registration No. 946 of 1974 ( U.P.Bar Council of Allahabad)                                                    Special Counsel in Ganga Pollution Matter.    Executive Member, World Parliament Experiment (Bonn) Germany 22^nd Feb. 7^th March 2008 Conveyor  International Conference Of Jurists, Held in SINGAPORE on 28^th Feb. upto 3 rd March 2010 ISRAL PROJECT INDIAN REPRESENTATIVE for SOCIAL COORDINATION ANF FOR MAINTAINING THE ROLE OF PEACE AND TRANSQUALITY IN INDIA (THROUGH SRI RAJIV DIXIT, BHARAT SWABHIMAN TRUST, PATANJALI YOGASPEETH, MAHARSHI DAYANAND GRAM, HARIDWAR 249402 PHONE 01334-240008)  Yoga superior studies &meditation science technique, 4215 NW 7 Street, #34, Miami, FL33126   International conferences of Chief Justices of the World            (Co Coordinators and Co- Organizers) at City Montessori School, Lucknow  yogrekha@gmail.com, yogrekha@rediffmail.com, 0532-2637720, 2436451, 9415284843, 9792131584,

People must not have any illusions that anglo saxon judiciary can solve their problems

Justice Katju. In the little dialogue between him and Prashant Bhushan, there are two lines that Justice Katju says that I find to be the reason for his actions.
1. ``So many directions have been given. What is the result?''
2. ``People must not have any illusions that judiciary can solve their problems.''

While I fully commend the judiciary for its continued war against injustice, my problem is with the means and not the end. There are two reasons why judicial activism should be limited. One is the question of enforceability. There are too many decisions that the Court gives that are never implemented. It isn't enough for the Court to decide in your favor. Unless it is implemented, it's as bad as before the judgment was given. This in itself should necessitate the search for alternate remedies.

The second reason is scope and priority. The Supreme Court and High Courts have been extending the scope of their jurisdiction with every passing day. In the long run, this isn't desirable. More importantly, as this happens, more cases are allowed. While each case may be deserving, there has to be a sense of practicality and reality. You must concede that you have finite resources, time and judges. Given these constraints, you cannot handle an increasing number of cases. Hence, it is imperative that you limit your scope to a manner such that the cases you hear are heard well and that quality of justice as opposed to number of cases decided increases.

This narrowing of scope by cutting the limits of judicial activism does not mean that these cases shouldn't be or will not be decided. For a long time, I've been thinking and trying to tell people that the answer is structural. There should be better systems in place to split grievances. This is not a case. There is no lis. These cases should be handled by either the Parliament or the Executive. The answer is to have, Like in the US, lobbying bodies and increased participation between people, their elected representatives and government, without recourse to the judiciary. We can see from the American example that this leads to greater and faster response to these primarily, public policy questions.

People must not have any illusions that judiciary can solve their problems, Why Colonial Ruled Judiciary Be Scraped

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Justice Markandey Katju’s opposition to Judicial activism continues

Today, W.P.© 580 of 2003, Common Cause v. Union of India & Ors came up for hearing before Justices H.K.Sema and Markandey Katju in Court No.4 of the Supreme Court. Even as the petitioner’s counsel, Prashant Bhushan sought the Bench’s directions to the authorities to implement the Motor Vehicle’s Act which requires that speed-breakers and speed-governors be installed to prevent traffic accidents, Justice Katju expressed his extreme displeasure over the petitioner’s prayer to the Bench to what he called to “legislate”. I am giving here the gist of exchanges which took place between Justice M.Katju(M.K. for short) and Prashant Bhushan (P.B. for short).

M.K: Can the Court direct murders will not take place? It is for the executive to take action. We will not interfere. It is not for us to legislate.
P.B.: I am not asking the Court to direct that accidents will not take place. Your comparison is not apposite. I am only asking the court to direct the authorities to exercise their powers under the M.V.Act. I understand your strong views on this matter. But there have been several examples when this Court has intervened: Vineet Narain, Police Reform case, Whistle-blower case in which the Court has clearly directed that the Government must exercise its powers. In all these cases, the Government had no explanation for its inaction because of vested interests. Take any crime, if the FIR is not registered, can’t the court direct?
M.K.: No. Section 156 Cr.P.C. clearly says that one has to approach the Magistrate, and he must be satisfied.
P.B.: Yes, if there is a statutory remedy. We are not asking the court to direct Parliament to legislate. We are asking the Executive to exercise its powers till the appropriate law is made.
M.K.: It is for the executive to decide whether speed breakers are to be fixed and where; we can’t decide.
P.B: It has been revealed that because of traffic accidents, the country is losing Rs.32,000 crore per year.
M.K.: Take the Yamuna cleaning Plan. Rs.14,000 crore has been spent because the Court directed cleaning up. See what happens. The river still stinks. The other day, I had to perform my mother’s last rites at the river bank. It was stinking. So many directions have been given. What is the result?
PB: Why?
MK: People must not have any illusions that judiciary can solve their problems. Take Price rise. Can the Court intervene?
PB: Many ills have been cured by Courts.
MK: People can cure ills through their creativity, and solve their problems themselves. How you do it, I don’t know. Human mind is so powerful.
PB: Our plea is for improving road safety, minimize traffic accidents. Some specific measures have been suggested.
MK: We will send it to the authorities to consider, we will recommend. We will not direct. We can’t create a cycle lane. That is for the legislature to do.
PB: If your lordship thinks it is a matter for the larger Bench to deal with, it may be considered.
MK: No, we will deal with it.
PB: This PIL may be tagged with another pending petition before another Bench, dealing with similar matter.
MK: We will consider all these. We reserve our judgment.

Bharatkalyan97: Beauty of the confluences of rivers

Bharatkalyan97: Beauty of the confluences of rivers: 1. Confluence of the Rhone and Arve Rivers in Geneva, Switzerland 2. Confluence of the Ilz, Danube, and Inn Rivers in Passau, Germany ...

प्रथम महिला राष्ट्रपति प्रतिभा पाटिल चीनी मिल में ड्रग स्मगलिंग से लेकर कई बैंक घोटाले, जमिन घोटाले और हत्यारे भाई को सरंक्षण देने जैसे गंभीर गुनाहों में डूबी हुई

भारत की प्रथम महिला राष्ट्रपति प्रतिभा पाटिल चीनी मिल में ड्रग स्मगलिंग से लेकर कई बैंक घोटाले, जमिन घोटाले और हत्यारे भाई को सरंक्षण देने जैसे गंभीर गुनाहों में डूबी हुई है ? जानिये और शेयर कीजिये प्रतिभा का काला सच:

1. प्रतिभा महिला सहकारी बैंक जिसे उन्होंने 1973 में अन्य महिलाओं के लिए अपने नाम से स्थापित किया था 1995 में भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक ने इसे "कमजोर बैंक" की सूची में शामिल कर लिया। उन्होंने अपने परिवार के कई लोगों को इसमें निदेशक बनाया। प्रतिभा पाटिल अंत तक इसकी संस्थापक अध्यक्ष बनी रहीं और रिश्तेदारों कों करोडो के कर्ज बाटकर घोटाले किये।
http://panchjanya.com/arch/2007/7/8/File7.htm

2. प्रतिभा पाटिल मुंबई के श्रम साधना ट्रस्ट की मैनेजिंग ट्रस्टी हैं। ट्रस्ट ने महाराष्ट्र में अपने द्वारा संचालित पॉलिटेक्निक से 2001 से 2003 के बीच 4.16 करोड़ रुपये निकाले जो नियमों का खुला उल्लंघन है। यह रकम इंस्टिट्यूट के विकास में इस्तेमाल की जानी चाहिए थी।'
http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2161853.cms

3. प्रतिभा के चेयरमन रहते हुये संत मुक्ताबाई चीनी मिल में ड्रग्स स्मगलिंग नेटवर्क पाया गया था, इस मिल में प्रतिभा ने काई घोटाले भी किये और मिल ने बैंक से लिया हुआ कर्ज भी डूबा दिया.
http://hindustan.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3639
http://hindi.webdunia.com/news/news/national/0706/23/1070623001_1.htm
http://panchjanya.com/arch/2007/7/8/File7.htm

4. कांग्रेस नेता व्ही.जी. पाटिल के हत्यारे अपने भाई को बचाने के लिए प्रतिभा ने राष्ट्रपति पद का दुरुपयोग किया था.
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/politics/pratibha-patil-the-truth-behindallegations_289566.html
http://hindi.in.com/showstory.php?id=14429

5. राष्ट्रपति प्रतिभा पाटिल की विदेश यात्राओं में सरकारी खजाने का करीब 205 करोड रूपया खर्च हो गया। यह एक रिकॉर्ड बन गया है। खर्च का ब्यौरा आरटीआई से हुआ है। प्रतिभा पाटिल ने अपने कार्यकाल में 12 विदेश यात्राएं कीं। इन विदेश यात्राओं के दौरान वह 79 दिन तक विदेशों में रहीं। उन्होंने सरकारी खजाने से अपने कई रिश्तेदारों कों भी विदेश यात्राए करवाई.
http://www.khaskhabar.com/editors-pick/National-pratibha-patil-foreignh-tours-2254709.html
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-03-25/news/31236682_1_foreign-trips-president-pratibha-patil-foreign-visits

6. राष्ट्रपति प्रतिभा पाटिल के रिटायरमेंट निवास के लिए पुणे में सैनिकों की 5 एकड़ से अधिक 2.60 लाख रुपए वर्ग फुट की कीमत वाली जमीन आबंटित कर दी गई । प्रतिभा पाटिल पर आरोप है कि बंगला बनाने के लिए उन्होंने तय सीमा से 6 गुना अधिक सेना की जमीन कथित रूप से ‘हथिया’ ली। बाद में विवाद के चलते प्रतिभा अपना फैसला बदल लिया.
http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/12634979.cms
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/President-Pratibha-Patil-gives-up-post-retirement-home-in-Pune/articleshow/12901250.cms

7. प्रतिभा पाटिल एक जमाने में इंदिरा गांधी के घर रसोई बनाने का काम करती थी. नेहरू-गांधी परिवार की वफादार होनी के नाते सोनिया गांधी ने उन्हें भारत का राष्ट्रपति बना दिया.
http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7461664.cms
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7460425.cms

8. प्रतिभा पाटिल और उनके पारिवारिक सदस्यों की अंडमान-निकोबार द्वीप की तीन दिवसीय यात्रा को सुरक्षित बनाने के लिए सैकड़ों पेड़ों को बलि चढ़ा दिया गया। राष्ट्रपति के हेलिकॉप्टर के लिए हेलीपेड बनाने में 400 से ज्यादा पेड़ काट दिए गए। पोर्ट ब्लेयर में विमानतल से राज निवास के बीच कम से 60 पेड़ इसलिए बलि चढ़ गए, क्योंकि ये जहाँ राष्ट्रपति ठहरेंगी, वहाँ से बीच का नजारा देखने में बाधा खड़ी करते।
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_400-trees-chopped-down-for-presidents-visit_1141498

9. राष्ट्रपति प्रतिभा पाटिल से जुड़े अन्य गुनाहों की जानकारी के लिए पढ़े:
http://www.thepunjabkesari.com/blog.aspx?blog_id=295

कुछ सच्चाइयाँ....!!! शेयर करें...

Share Please. मित्रों क्या आप जानते है की शांत स्वभाव और साफसुथरे व्यक्तित्व के ...