SEC IIA IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL
(CRIMINAL)
NOS. 8898, 8899 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra & Others
…..Petitioners
V E R S U S Indur Kartar Chhugani & Others
…..Respondent No 1
Affidavit in reply
Reasons why Special leave to appeal as prayed by
Petitioners above named must not be granted and
status quo already granted must be withdrawn
immediately.
I, the Respondent, Indur Kartar Chhugani, son of Late
Mr.
Kartar Chhugani, aged 61 years, resident of 501/502
Pinky Panorama Co-operative Society, 6th Road, Khar
(West) Mumbai- 400 052, do hereby state on oath and
solemn affirmation as under:-
That I am the managing trustee of a Trust called
“People for Legal and Emotional Assistance to
the Deserving” (PLEAD), Regd. No. E-24397 (BOM).
The objective of PLEAD is to bring together all
retired and highly educated persons such as
Engineers, Doctors, Lawyers, Military personnel,
Teachers, Journalists, Judges, Police officers and
other literate citizens to unite under one forum and
form citizen groups in each police station area to
bring about changes in all matters of importance to
the public and the nation through legal and
democratic means.
The Main Grounds due to which Status Quo must be
withdrawn:
A. The Petitioners have deliberately not brought on
record Cr. Application No. 101 of 2008 in Cr. Writ
Petition 1679 of 2007 filed by the Respondent on
27.3.2008. The Prayers in this application are as
below: ( read Cr Application at http://www.RoguePolice.com/101appl.htm )
PRAYERS IN APPLICATION:
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.
B. The petitioners deliberately filed a misleading
Cr. Application No. 223 of 2008 on 23.7.2008, annexed
as Annexure 24. In this Application, on Page B, item
3, the date was omitted, it should have read as
25.1.2008 . On page 2, para III, it is portrayed as
if only on 23.7.2008, that the Police department has
made this list. When the Respondent tried to point
this out to the Court, the learned judge insulted me
and instructed me to engage a counsel, who would be
representing me in the case. Subsequently, on
11.9.2008, the learned judge hearing this petition
ousted me from this petition and even threatened me
in open court, that he will send me to Judicial
custody. Details are in Para N below
C. That after silencing me on 24.7. 2008, the learned
judge hearing the petition then passed the order,
which the petitioners have referred to as the
IMPUGNED ORDER , reproduced on Page 1 by the
Petitioner.
D. That in Annexure P-1, corresponding to pgs. 22-30,
Para 2 of the order dt. 12.10.2006, in PIL 52 of
2006, It is stated that: “The petitioners in
this Public Interest Litigation have challenged the
permission dated 2nd November 2005, granted to the
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai for constructing
concrete barricade around Shri Siddhivanayak Temple,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai”.
E. That in Annexure P-3, I have prayed in Cr.
WP/1679/07 for demolishing, in a time bound
programme, of all the unauthorized beat chowkies,
etc., constructed illegally without ANY PERMISSIONS
on footpaths, and public roads, for which power was
pilfered and water connections illegally tapped
without any permission from any authority, flouting
all laws, including the Coastal Regulation Zone Laws.
F. That what is alarming is the fact that these
chowkies have the names of sponsors displayed on them
(who had built them by flouting all laws for the
Mumbai Police), and these chowkies were pilfering
electric connections or connections were forcibly
taken from shops nearby. The sponsors of these
chowkies were drug dealers, shady builders and pimps.
To date, the police department has not provided
details of the sponsors to the Court.
G. That after their names were publicized on the
chowkies, these sponsors acted as agents for the
Mumbai Police for getting favourable treatment for
unscrupulous individuals, whenever they were caught
having done some illegal act.
H. That the Petitioners have come belatedly to this
Honourable Court, since orders for demolishing /
regularizing illegal Police beat chowkies was first
passed on 24.10.2007, then on 9.1.2008 and then again
on 25.1.2008 and then, last on 24.7.2008.
I. That the petitioners have deliberately mislead
this Hon’ble Court, which is the highest court
in the country, that in order to demolish the illegal
police chowkies of 24.7.2008 is the first order in Cr
WP 1679/07. The first order was actually passed on
24.10.2007.
J. That it is the last order of 24.7.2008 that is
being challenged. The main reason why Petitioners
suddenly decided to challenge the said impugned order
is because I had brought to the notice of the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court the nexus between the
Mumbai police and an advertising company (which is
Respondent No. 6) that is involved in a fraudulent
scheme, through which they are illegally earning
nearly Rs 8-9 Crores every month, definitely with
huge payoffs to the Mumbai Police. The revenue is
generated from advertisement on pedestals and booths
on busy traffic intersections all over the city of
Mumbai. The modus operandi of this thriving nexus is
brought forth in detail in my affidavit dated
5.5.2008, listed on Page E of the petition. ( Read
Affd of 5.5.2008 at http://www.RoguePolice.com/100crore.htm )
K. That in this affidavit of 5.5.2008 in Para 5, it
is stated by me: “From the knowledge that I have
of the outdoor advertising industry in Mumbai, I can
very confidently assert that the pedestals across
Mumbai (which the Mumbai Police has allowed access to
free in an arbitrary and illegal manner to an
advertising company), can easily generate Rs 100
Crores (Rupees One Hundred Crores) ANNUALLY, with NIL
investment by Mumbai Police.. This lost revenue can
be used most productively for providing benefits to
the lower ranks of the police force, such as funding
their housing requirements, education of their
children and compensating a policeman’s family
in case of death of the policeman while on duty.
L. That Para 6 reads: “At present all the
financial benefit goes to the private parties, who in
turn must be paying, to the Sr. Police Officers about
Rs 2 – Rs 3 Crores EVERY MONTH under the table.
This has been happening since last 7 years, though I
admit I do not have any film footage, to prove that
the senior officers of the Mumbai Police are raking
in the bribes. But like all citizens, I too am
blessed with common sense, which is that the highly
intelligent IPS officers would never allow any
businessman to earn crores with their help, without
getting some portion of it as bribes.
M. That ever since I have filed the affidavit on
5.5.2008, I have been treated like an outcaste and an
illiterate citizen, by the learned single judge of
the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court and was not
permitted / allowed to speak and represent myself,
thus infringing my Fundamental Rights under Articles
14 & 21, Constitution of India. Though the
petition came up for a hearing about 10 times, from
June 2008 to September 2008, I was ill-treated as
above. Finally, l was told by the learned single
judge (who was hearing the criminal writ petition) to
knock on the doors of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India for justice, which I declined, because I
said that I wanted the Bombay High Court to provide
relief and mete justice to me and thereafter, a order
was passed on 11.9.2008, through which I have been
needlessly and unceremoniously thrown out from the
writ petition.
N. That the Hon’ble judges of the Bombay High
Court had asked me to take the matter to the Supreme
Court, when I had tried to bring the affidavit dtd.
5.5.2008 to the notice of the court. When I enquired
as to, why I needed to take it to the Supreme court,
I was insulted, asked to sit down and an order was
passed, disallowing me to appear in the petition and
a Government nominee was appointed as Amicus Curie.
The order of 11.9.2008 is reproduced as below:
Order of 11.9.2008
1. An undertaking has been filed by the Commissioner
of Police that the Police Chowkies in question will
be demolished within a period of six months time from
today and make it clear that if the undertaking is
not carried out necessary consequence will follow
2 ... 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".
O. That while the learned single judge was dictating
the order of 11.9.2008, I protested about the
adjournment for 6 months and tried to reason that
this was not just a matter of public interest, I had
a personal reason. This petition was filed as a Cr.
Writ Petition, not as a PIL. This case is my effort
to make the Mumbai police a law abiding force, after
I was arrested in a false case and my wife harassed
in a illegal police chowky (details are given in Cr.
WP 2414 of 2005), and therefore, I had NOT filed a
PIL, but a Cr. Writ Petition. For bringing this fact
to the notice of the learned single judge while he
was dictating the order, the learned single judge
threatened to send me to Judicial custody and
motioned to a police officer to come forward.
P. That subsequently, I sent a letter, which can be
construed as a complaint against the aforementioned
learned single judge to the Chief Justice of the
Bombay High Court on 30.9.2009 and thereafter,
applied to Registrar General on 5.1.2009 and then
moved a criminal application on 12.2.2009 No 49/2009,
praying that “none of my petition must come
before the learned judge who was hearing the
petition” (I am not naming the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court judge out of deference to the fact
that I hold the judiciary in the utmost of respect
and regard and also the constitutional position that
he holds) . This transfer application was heard on
16.2.2009 and 20.2.2009 and the order was reserved.
Q. That how unjust is this order, can be understood,
from the fact that I have appeared before the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court in other matters and
no Judge has thought it necessary to infringe on my
fundamental right to argue in person. Details are
below:
a. Appeared on 26.6.08 before Hon’ble Mr.
Justice B. H. Marlapalle and Hon’ble Mr. Justice
J.H. Bhatia in Cr. WP/2414/05
b. Appeared on 16.10.2008 2008 before Hon’ble
Mr. Justice F.I. Rebello and Hon’ble Mr. Justice
A. A. Kumbhakoni in Cr. WP/2414/09.
c. Appeared twice before the Hon’ble DB 1 of
Hon’ble Bombay High Court of Hon’ble the
Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar and Hon’ble Dr.
Justice D Y Chandrachud in the transfer Application
49/2009, on 16th and 20th February 2009.
d. Appeared 4 times before the Hon’ble Division
Bench 1 olf the Hon’ble Bombay High Court of
Hon’ble the Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar and
Hon’ble Dr. Justice D Y Chandrachud in Cr.
PIL/20/2008 on 15/1/2009,29/1/2009, 26/2/2009 and
5/3/2009.
Other Grounds why Status Quo must be withdrawn:
A. That the order passed on 24.10.2007 states that:
“We expect that on the next date, Additional
Chief Secretary (Home) Government of Maharashtra,
will file compliance report in this court. Let this
not be restricted to the police force of Greater
Mumbai but also be implemented throughout the
state”. The next date was 9.1.2008. To date, no
compliance report has been filed.
B. That Annexure-P-5 is the copy of the Affidavit
filed on 22.10.2007 by Late Shri Hemant Karkare, who
passed away on 26.11.2008 in the dastardly terrorist
assault on Mumbai, which states that out of 388 Beat
police Chowkies, 269 Beat police chowkies have not
obtained permission from the Brihan Mumbai Municipal
Corporation. These 269 do not include 100s of
chowkies, which are abandoned and are used by the
police, to illegally detain citizens, as no senior
police officer ever visits them. These abandoned
chowkies, were ordered to be demolished on 25.1.2008,
but the order has been blatantly ignored by the
Mumbai Police.
C. That the order of 24.10.2007 (on para 6) reads as
hereinafter: “Mr Borulkar, the learned Public
Prosecutor submits that he would get all electric
connections to the police station as well police
chowkies inspected by the Electrical Inspector
appointed under Electricity Act, 2003”. Despite
over 18 months since the order, nothing has been
done.
D. That the order of 24.10.2007 (on para 4) reads as
hereinafter: “Mr Borulkar the learned public
prosecutor, assures the court, that the respondent
Police Department is prepared to mend and rectify the
illegality in a phased manner and expressed its
gratitude to the petitioner for bringing to the
notice of the State Government the illegalities and
errors committed by the Government in constructing
police chowky and obtaining electric
connection”.
E. That however, after expressing gratitude to me in
the court, the senior Police Officers threatened me
outside the court and this is recorded in order of
9.1.2008 para 1 and the last 3 lines of para 2, which
read as: “We make it clear that if any harm
visits the petitioner, the Home Department and the
Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai will be solely
responsible for the consequences”.
F. That the order of 25.1.2008 (para 1) reads
hereinafter as: ”An affidavit has been filed by
the Joint Commissioner of Police as directed by our
order dated 17.1.2008. It is submitted that a
circular, in terms of our order, has also been
issued. He has stated that there are 137 police
chowkies in the City of Mumbai, which will be removed
within a period of six months“. That at the end
of 6 months, only 20 chowkies were removed, instead
of 137.
G. That the order of 25.1.2008 (para 3) reads as:
“The petitioners have also submitted that there
are abandoned chowkies, which are not even in use of
policemen. We direct the police to look into the
matter and if there are any such chowkies, they
should be removed immediately”. This order has
been blatanly ignored to date. Though there are 100s
of such abandoned police beat chowkies, the police
continue to use them for illegal activites. There are
86 police stations and on an average, each police
station has 2 abandoned chowkies, in which,
sometimes, helpless citizens are detained illegally,
without being produced in courts within 24 hours,
which is mandatory, as per the law. The abandoned
Chowkies continue to be used for illegal purposes.
PRAYERS
1. Considering the aforementioned facts, this
Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
withdraw/recall Status Quo granted to the petitioner.
2. This Hon’ble Court, which is the esteemed
highest Court in the country, direct the learned
judge hearing my petition to desist from intimidation
of elderly Petitioners like myself.
3. Any other just and equitable order in the interest
of justice may kindly be passed.
I, Indur Kartar Chhugani, son of Late Mr. Kartar
Chhugani, Aged 61 years, resident of 501/502, Pinky
Panorama Co-operative Society, 6th Road, Khar (West),
Mumbai-400 052, 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 9th day of March 2009 (Indur Kartar Chhugani)
I appeared at
the Supreme Court on the date 26/3/2009 as
required. An affidavit in Reply was filed
earlier in the Supreme Court ans all 7
respondents given a copy in Mumbai a week
earlier ... The lawyer for Maharashtra
Government stated "We have not been able
to serve the appeal copy to all respondents
yet" . The CJI and 2 other Judges said
"After 4 weeks" ... I tried to
protest "I have come all the way from
Mumbai" ... For them I was invisible....
NOW imagine the Maharashtra Government has
filed this appeal in November 2008 ... Why
have they not been able to serve coplies to 7
addresses in all these months ... Everyone
knows this was a trick to frustrate the
opposite party ... that's me.