IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
DISTRICT : MUMBAI
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 78 OF 2010
IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. : 1679 OF 2007
Indur Kartar Chhugani ….Petitioner
Age : 62 years, Occ. : Social work.
R/o. : 501-502, Pinky Panorama CHS Ltd.
6th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai - 400 052.
V E R S U S
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.
4. Divisional Engineer Vigilance,
(Electric Supply) B E S and T
Undertaking, Multistorey Building,
Colaba Mumbai 400005.
5. The Director (Vigilance)
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.
Ltd.,
HSBC Building, Fort, Mumbai 400 001.
6. Vigilance Officer,
C/o Managing Director,
Reliance Energy Ltd., Reliance Energy Centre,
Santa Cruz E, Mumbai 400055
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. After the Maharashtra Government on 20th
November 2008 filed an Criminal Special Leave
Petition Nos. 8898, 8899 OF 2008 in the Supreme
Court, I and not Mr R. B. Raghuvanshi, the
Additional Solicitor General, was made Respondent
No 1 and received notice dated 28-1-2009 and was
directed to file a reply on 16th March 2009,
which I have done.
2. The order that was challenged is referred as
“Interim Order dated 24-7-2008 in Criminal
Writ Petition No 1679 of 2007 and Criminal Writ
Petition No 36 of 2008 passed by the Bombay High
Court”. None of the orders passed earlier
were challenged after The Mumbai Police admitted
on 24-10-2007 through an affidavit by Addl
Commissioner of Police Late Shri Hemant Karkare
of having constructed by illegal means 269 police
chowkies in Mumbai alone. They are as under:
A. 24-10-2007 ….The Honourable High court
passed an order on 24-10-2007 allowing the Mumbai
Police 3 months time till 9-1-2008 to demolish
all illegal chowkies across Maharashtra, after
the Addl Commissioner of Police Late Shri Hemant
Karkare filed an affidavit, admitting the illegal
construction of 269 Police Chowkies by Mumbai
Police. Order Copy attached as EXHIBIT
“A”.
B. 9-1-2007 ... By this day the Mumbai Police had
not demolished a single police chowky nor had
they provided details of illegal chowkies in
other cities of Maharashtra, so the Hon’ble
court passed order directing them to demolish
some selected chowkies immediately. Order Copy
attached as EXHIBIT “B”. Also they were
warned against harming the petitioner.
C. 25.1.2008 ….The Hon’ble Court gave
Mumbai Police another 6 months to demolish on a
priority basis 137 Police chowkys in Mumbai
(about the rest of Maharashtra they gave no
details). After 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. Order Copy
attached as EXHIBIT “C”
D. 27-3-2008...Criminal Application 101 of 2008
…Since the order of 24th October 2007
allowed me to bring additional facts to the
notice of the court. I filed Criminal Application
101 of 2008, bringing to the notice of this
Hon’ble court shocking facts about a nexus
between the Mumbai Police, Muncipal Corporation
and an advertising company. Whereby in the garb
of “Revised designed Umbrellas”, what
had been installed across the city are
Advertisement booths, This is a clever way of
having favoured a Advertising company to acquire
space at the most visible locations in the city,
for nil consideration. The revenue earned by this
advertisement company amounts to approximately Rs
10 crores EVERY MONTH since 2001. Even electric
power for these illuminated advertising booths
was allowed to be pilfered from traffic signal
equipments.
3. None of the above facts have been mentioned in
the Criminal Special Leave Petition NOS. 8898,
8899 OF 2008 in the Supreme Court, by the
Maharashtra Government, wherein I have been made
Respondent No 1.
4. On 11-9-2008 this Hon’ble Court had
passed an order literally expelling me from the
Petition which I have filed. Stating thus
“... The petitioner who has brought this
public interest matter is not in a position to
understand the behaviour which people are
expected to maintain at the courts and which
behaviour is known to the lawyers by their
conduct. Therefore, we requested him on several
occasions to engage counsel, so that we could
understand the point of view. Even otherwise this
is a matter of public interest and the petitioner
has no interest. Therefore we relieve him of
this case and he shall not be heard again in this
case. However, we appoint Mr R. B. Raghuvanshi,
the Additional Solicitor General, as amicus
curiae to assist this case, List all the
matters on 11th March 2009".
5. I had met Mr R. B. Raghuvanshi, the Additional
Solicitor General, in an effort to explain the
full petition to him in November 2008, but he
refused to give me any time.
6. Mr R. B. Raghuvanshi, the Additional Solicitor
General, has not appeared even once at the Bombay
High Court to explain the facts to this court and
this petition has been listed atleast 6 times
since his appointment as “amicus
curiae”. He either does not have time or
does not have the inclination to pursue a matter
against the Mumbai Police.
7. I have appeared and filed my counter Affidavit
at the Supreme Court on 16-3-2009 and the
Maharashtra Government has simply been getting
the case adjourned since then, EVERY 2 MONTHS, on
the plea that not all Respondents have been
served.
8. I also appeared at the Bombay High Court on
6-1-2010 and again on 18-2-2010, after I realized
that the “amicus curiae” appointed by
the court, was actually working as “amicus
curiae” for the Mumbai Police.
9. I have taken pains of pursuing this petition
at grave personal risk, I should be allowed to
guide the courts, and not some Government nominee
appointed as amicus curiae.
10. I am an educated 62 years old Engineer and
have been Managing Director of Public Limited
company for 20 years, which employed over 400
graduates, and definitely know, how to conduct
myself, before a court. Also I have appeared
before numerous other judges including former
Chief Justice Shri Swatanter Kumar prior and
after 11-9-2008 and no Judge has ever objected to
my appearing in person.
11. Also at present I am appearing in Person in
Election Petition 1 of 2009 before Justice Shri
Abhay Oka.
PRAYERS
1. I may kindly be allowed to pursue the Criminal
Writ Petition 1679 0f 2007 filed by me.
2. I may kindly be allowed to pursue Criminal
Application No 101 of 2008 filed by me (and not
challenged in the Supreme Court by Maharashtra
Government).
3. Any other just and equitable order may kindly
be passed.
The applicant, has not filed any similar
application in any other court.
Mumbai: 23/2/2010 Indur Kartar Chhugani
Applicant
AFFIRMATION
I, Indur Kartar Chhugani Age 62 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 23rd day of February 2010 (Indur Kartar
Chhugani)
Indentified by : Self
Latest
on this site... This website informs of
actions by Rogue Police in India.
P.L.E.A.D.needs
funds, to contribute ...Click here