Writ petition in supreme court
Milap Choraria
(Querist) 31 May 2015
This query is : Resolved
Respective private parties responsible for infringement of the fundamental rights are necessary parties to be named in Writ Petition?
Milap Choraria
(Querist) 01 June 2015
My query is relating to a Writ Petition if filed under Article 32 before the Supreme Court against respective Public Authority. I want to know whether the respective Private parties are necessary parties, who are responsible to get caused the infringement of the fundamental rights from the hands of the respective Public Authority?
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 01 June 2015
Can U elaborate briefly the contents of the petition?
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 01 June 2015
yes,they are necessary parties and make those private parties as respondents in writ petition.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 01 June 2015
Consult some senior Supreme Court lawyer and show him the case file.
Anirudh
(Expert) 01 June 2015
SC does not encourage petition under Art.32. SC advises the parties to first approach the jurisdictional HC under Art. 226. Therefore, better approach the HC instead of SC.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 10 June 2015
Expert Mr. Sainath insisted on furnishing more details in order to render proper opinion. Now other experts have found you wrong for approaching supreme court without exhausting the remedies available in high court, what is your reply for this?
Milap Choraria
(Querist) 11 June 2015
I am fighting against a powerful Land Mafia. In 2007 IT department admitted under RTI Act, that on the basis of my Tax Evasion Petition a raid was conducted in the year of 1996 and that during the raid “Total concealment of Rs. 13,20,08,222 was detected tentatively.”, from the financiers of a particular project of a company belonging to said powerful person from Kolkata and his five brothers-in-law. IT Department also disclosed some enquiry reports, which appears that same were prepared under hand in glove to protect huge black money of more than Rs.30/40 Crores. After such disclosure a false story was fabricated and on or about 2nd July, 2007 a back dated complaint of 18th January, 2007 was filed and without recording any order the Office of the Ld. Court forwarded the said Complaint to Police. As a result FIR was Registered on 4th July, 2007 and first Order is Recorded in the Order Sheet only on 5th December, 2007. Defacto complainant of the case is separated from her husband (admittedly) on 10th December, 2003 and complaint was lodged after more than three years and 6 months from admitted separation against 9 person, having residences far far away 1400/1500 KM from the residence of Defaqcto-Complaint.
I have filed Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. SLP under Article 136(1) of Constitution but contrary to true facts that a single evidence/ credible information is not disclosed, and Police in its two Reports says that alleged incidence not occurred within the Jurisdiction of his Police Station, and their is no third Report is submitted. The most absurd thing is that without collecting a single evidence contrary to aforesaid two Reports new IO arrested me, under criminal conspiracy and connivance to support black mailing object of Land Mafia, to eliminate me after ensuring my jail custody. It is also a matter of fact that in the entire charge sheet nothing described about anything relating to any Crime, except language that crimes are established under Section 498A, DPACt, and PWDV Act, and even date of alleged incidence not even referred in the CS. My aforesaid Petition was dismissed by my own advocate, who subsequently elevated as Judge, and most surprisingly he also referred the aforesaid matters in my another quashing petition. Relying ion said Order of High Court Supreme Court dismissed my SLP.
I filed my Writ Petition on the basis of three Supreme Court Judgments : (1) dated 28/04/1961 in the matter of SMT. UJJAM BAI -Vs.- STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (BENCH: DAS, S.K. BENCH: DAS, S.K. KAPUR, J.L. SARKAR, A.K. SUBBARAO, K. HIDAYATULLAH, M. AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA MUDHOLKAR, J.R. CITATION: 1962 AIR 1621 1963 SCR (1) 778) although thereby dismissed the respective Writ Petition while otherwise interalia held that “So far I have dealt with three main classes of cases as to which there is very little disagreement: (1) where action is taken under an ultra vires statute; (2) where the statute is intra vires, but the action taken is without jurisdiction; and (3) where the action taken is procedurally ultra vires. In all these cases the question of enforcement of a fundamental right may arise and if it does arise, an application under Art. 32 will undoubtedly lie. As to these three classes of cases there has been very little disagreement between the parties before us.”; (2) another Judgment dated 06/11/1962 in the matter of Prem Chand Garg Vs. Excise Commissioner, U. P. (CITATION: 1963 AIR 996 1963 SCR Supl. (1) 885 : the Hon’ble Supreme Court interalia held that “r. 12 of O.XXXV Supreme Court Rules is invalid in so far as it relates to the furnishing of security. The right to move the Supreme Court under Art. 32 is an absolute right and the content of this right cannot be circumscribed or impaired on any ground. An order for furnishing security for the respondent's costs retards the assertion or vindication of the fundamental right under Art. 32 and contravenes the said right. The fact that the rule is discretionary does not alter the position. Though Art. 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order to do complete justice between the parties, the Court cannot make an order inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. No question of inconsistency between Art. 142.(1) and Art. 32 arises as Art. 142(1) does not confer any power on the Supreme Court to contravene the provisions of Art. 32. Nor does Art. 145 which confers power, upon the Supreme Court to make rules, empower it to contravene the provisions of Art. 32.”; and (3) Six Judge Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment (AIR:1950, SC: 124, Kania CJ, Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, Mahajan, B.K.Mokherjea, And Das JJ.), interalia also held that: “The Supreme Court is thus constituted the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights, and it cannot, consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringement of such rights.”.
