1. The State of Maharashtra ….Respondents
At the instance of
Addl. Chief Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya,
Mumbai;
2. The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai
Police Commissionerate Compound,
Opp. : Crawford Market, Mumbai &
3. The Municipal Commissioner, Mumbai
BrihanMumbai Municipal Corporation,
Opp. : Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus,
Mumbai.
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 14, 19 & 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
To,
The Honourable the Chief Justice and
other Puisne Judges of this Hon’ble
High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
Humble Petition of the Petitioner abovenamed :
Most Respectfully Sheweth :
1. On 4th May 2007, a leading newspaper Mumbai Mirror
published a story on the frontpage about police
chowkies pilfering power.And next day again they
published the follow up story. Please refer
EXH”C” in original petition. However the
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai who is head of the
police force in Mumbai did not do anything to take
action, against the police officers responsible for
these acts. The Supreme Court orders in CASE NO:
Appeal (crl.) 206 of 2008 arising from Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) NO. 1719 OF 2006: Petitioner Som
Mittal Vs Respondent Government of Karnataka, has
upheld prosecution of the highest official of the
organization, for a act by some official, in charge
of transporting employees to work and back to home.
2. On 24th October 2007, the Public Prosecutor Mr
Borulkar made a commitment “that he would get
all the electric connections to the police station as
well as police chowkies inspected by the Electrical
Inspector appointed under the Electricity Act,
2003” and will produce a report from the
electrical inspector, on the next date 9th January
2008, this has not been done yet. Also the list of
police officers involved in theft of electric power
was to be provided, along with the names of all Sr
Police Inspectors under whom these unlawful acts were
committed. No such list has been provided yet. This
is clearly contempt of the highest court in the state
of Maharashtra.
3. On 24th October 2007, the Public Prosecutor had
requested time of 3 months, to demolish or regularize
the 269 illegal chowkies. This court allowed 11
weeks. Also they were to provide on the next date,
which was after 11 weeks, on 9th January 2008, the
list of 269 unlawfully constructed chowkies and the
names of the sponsorer of each of these chowky. No
such information has still been furnished to this
honourable court. This information is of utmost
importance, as the truth will come out, as to what
kind of people, the police is associated with. This
refusal to provide information is clearly contempt of
the highest court in the state of Maharashtra.
4. On 24th October 2007 , this Honourable court had
asked for a compliance report on illegal chowkies,
throughout the State by 9th January 2008. No
compliance report has been filed, till date, by the
Additional Chief Secretary, Government of
Maharashtra, clearly demonstrating the contempt with
which the police department and the home ministry
treat the orders of this honourable court, which is
the highest court in the state..
5. 0n January 25, 2008 an affidavit was filed by the
Jt commissioner of Police and Advocate General Mr
Ravi Kadam asked for 6 months to demolish 137 illegal
chowkies on footpaths. This honourable court desired
to watch the progress of demolition of these illegal
chowkies and listed the matter after 5 weeks on 29th
February 2008. Despite directions of this honourable
court, to immediately demolish all abandoned chowkies
across Mumbai, the police have not come up with any
statistics, clearly showing utter contempt for the
court orders. These chowkies are used for only
unlawful activities and are literally safe places,
where any contraband can be stored, or person can be
hidden, without any fear of discovery by any
individual or any government agency. The addresses of
all such chowkies have not been provided till date.
6. The highest Police officials are treating this
honourable court, as a church, where they have made
confessions about committing unlawful acts and assume
they are absolved of the sins.
7. The petitioner has made efforts to obtain the same
information (as detailed in above paras), through the
Right to Information Act application on 1-2-2008, but
the reply received is “that since the case
regarding Chowkies is being heard in the high court,
no information will be given”. Attached is My
RTI application and their reply EXH “A “
8. While the police chowky outside Khar Station was
demolished on 15th January 2008, the foundation 12ft
X 12 ft and 30 inches high has been left intact,
which continues to be an impediment to the traffic.
The compliance report filed through an affidavit by
Sr Inspector, Khar Police Station on 17-1-2008 is
thus false. This Sr Inspector has earlier provided
false Information under the RTI act, regarding name
of sponsor’s and regarding illegal water
connection for the beat chowkies. This is clearly
contempt of the highest court in the state of
Maharashtra.
9. The air-conditioned beat chowky, constructed at
Juhu beach is in clear violations of the laws enacted
for Coastal Regulation Zone and without any Muncipal
permission, it is built by a very Sr Police official
Addl. Commissioner of Police Mr. Arup Patnaik, whose
name is mentioned on the granite plaque fixed at the
chowky. This chowky is financed by people, considered
as scum of the society. It is of utmost importance,
that Mr Arup Patnaik informs the court of the names
of the people who have financed it, along with their
business details and Pan Cards. Attached is picture
as EXH “B “.
10. Since the order of 24th October 2007 allows me to
bring additional facts to the notice of the court. I
hereby bring some shocking facts to the courts notice
about actions of Joint Commissioner of Police
(Traffic)which are clearly aimed at huge illegal
earnings for the top police ranks in connivance with
a Advertising company, to ensure a steady illegal
income every month, year after year, to the traffic
department, since the year 2001. The facts are as
under:
A. On 24th May 2001, the Joint Police Commisioner of
Police (traffic) Shri Prahlad Shinde, initiated a
proposal, by addressing a letter to the Addl.
Muncipal Commissioner, to install Umbrellas at
traffic signals with revised design, stating
“…for upgrading the quality of these
umbrellas for better visibility of the policemen
including at night and better facilities for storage
of traffic control material and better
aesthetics”.
B. In the garb of “Revised designed
Umbrellas”, what has been installed across the
city are Advertisement booths, inside which no
policeman has ever stood to control traffic and since
they are illuminated on 4 sides, in the night no
policemen will be able to stand, because of the heat
of the electrical lights. This is a clever way of
having favoured a Advertising company to acquire
space at the most visible locations in the city. For
what consideration, no record is placed before the
court.
C. During his short stint as Commissioner of Police
Dr P S Pasricha, who is considered an expert in
traffic control, discussed and finally wrote to Jt
Commissioner of Police (Traffic) on 5th February 2004
about “urgent review of all the traffic booths
and remove all those which seem to have been erected
only for commercial purpose”. But unfortunately
he was removed from that post that very day and Mr A
N Roy was appointed as Police Commissioner. Was Dr P
S Pasricha, removed from the post because he tried to
stop, the Crores of Rupees, flowing in as bribes, is
a question that deserves an answer. Letter attached
as EXH “C“. The incoming Commissioner Mr A
N Roy did nothing to stop these activities and the
benefits to the advertising company only increased.
D. In affidavit filed on 7/3/2008 by Dy Commissioner
of Police Shri Shahaji Solunke, in para 7 it is
mentioned that “NOCs have been extended /
renewed from time to time and they are valid till
30.4.2015”. By letter dated 9-5-2006 the MCGM Dy
Chief Engineer Traffic has informed the Jt.
Commissioner of Police (Traffic) “The validity
of the permissions is upto 30-4-2010, which is as per
the date of validity of No-objection specified vide
your letter No 702/P/9/T/2003 of 22-4-2003”. How
was NOC then extended till 2015 by both Police and
Muncipal authorities, when it is still only 2008.
E. All these revised designed Umbrellas are supposed
to be totally portable, according to the proposal
sent on 24th May 2001. So it is clear that the
electric company cannot provide electric meters. So
how are they illuminated.
F. Electric power is pilfered, for these
Umbrella’s with the blessings of the police. On
footpaths, where power was not easily available from
signals, meter is taken and bypassed. EXH “D
“ is the picture of the meter at Marine drive.
G. The Electric Companies knowing that the final
beneficiaries are the Sr. Police Officials has taken
no efforts, to stop the pilferage, and treated it as
a monthly gift to the Police.
H. The Muncipal authorities are aware of the breach
of terms and conditions such as, building fixed
structures instead of portable ones, taking power
from existing signal equipments, removing Logo of
police, for which 1/3rd area was reserved as per
original conditions. Incidently this logo was
removed, from hundreds of advertising booths
overnight on 18th January 2008, after the police
authorities, tapped conversations on my mobile on
16th and 17th January 2008.
PRAYERS
1. Having regard to the para No 1, the Commissioner
of Police, Mumbai must be prosecuted, for unlawful
actions of his officers and refusing to act, even
after the leading newspaper Mumbai Mirror published
the facts on the front page on 4-5-2007. The police
station nearest to the Office of the commissioner of
police shall be directed to prosecute the police
Commissioner for dereliction of duty.
2. Not Following and complying court orders is no
small thing and such acts by the any person, lower
the Dignity of the High Court, when not punished.
Having regard to para No 2,3,4,5 and 8 the honourable
court shall punish the Commissioner Of Police and
other Officials for Contempt of Court Orders and
order them to file compliance report, without any
further delay.
3. Having regard to para 9, Mr Arun Patnaik shall be
directed to file an affidavit before this court and
state the names of people who have sponsored that
chowky.
4. Having regard to para 10 (F,G), the police shall
be directed to take action against company officials
of respondent no 4 and 6.
5. Having regard to para 10 (H), MCGM the respondent
no 3, shall be directed to immediately remove all
these so called advertisement Umbrellas.
6. Any other just and equitable order may kindly be
passed.
The petitioner, has not filed any similar application
in any other court.
I, Indur Kartar Chhugani Age 60 years, residing at
Khar, do hereby state on solemn affirmation that what
is stated hereinabove is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and record and information gathered
by me, which I believe to be true.
Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai
This 27th day of March 2008 (Indur Kartar Chhugani)