IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF
2016 (S)
PETITIONER : SHYAM MOHAN VERMA
Versus
RESPONDENTS : THE
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
& Ors.
I N D E X
|
S.
No.
|
Description
of documents
|
Annexure
|
Pages
|
|
1.
|
Index
|
|
1 to 3
|
|
2.
|
DECLARATION (Under
Rule 25 of Chapter X)
|
|
4
|
|
3.
|
Chronology of Events
|
|
5 to 9
|
|
4.
|
Memo of Writ petition with affidavit
|
|
10 to 31
|
|
5.
|
List of documents.
|
|
32 & 33
|
|
6.
|
Copy
of the application dated 11.07.2008 under the provisions of Section 6(1) the
Right to Information Act, 2005
|
P-1
|
34
|
|
7.
|
Copy
of the memo dated 11.08.2008
|
P-2
|
35
|
|
8.
|
Copy
of the application dated 28.08.2008
|
P-3
|
36
|
|
9.
|
Copy
of the rejection Order dated 21.08.2008 under the provisions of Section 6(1)
the Right to Information Act, 2005
|
P-4
|
37
|
|
10.
|
Copy
of the memo of appeal dated 31.08.2008
|
P-5
|
38
|
|
11.
|
Copy of the Order dated 27.09.2008 passed by
first appellate authority
|
P-6
|
39
|
|
12.
|
Copy of the memo of appeal dated 12.11.2008
|
P-7
|
40
|
|
13.
|
Copy of the order dated 11.02.2010 passed by
State Information Commissioner
|
P-8
|
41
|
|
14.
|
Copy of the review application dated
13.05.2010
|
P-9
|
42
|
|
15.
|
Copy
of the second application on 18.02.2012 under the provisions of Section 6(1)
the Right to Information Act, 2005
|
P-10
|
43
|
|
16.
|
Copy
of the rejection order dated 19.03.2012
|
P-11
|
44
|
|
17.
|
Copy
of the memo of appeal dated 27.03.2012
|
P-12
|
45
|
|
18.
|
Copy
of the Order dated 23.04.2012 passed by first appellate authority
|
P-13
|
46
|
|
19.
|
Copy
of the representation dated 04.08.2012
|
P-14
|
47
|
|
20.
|
Copy
of the Judgment dated 08.03.2013 passed by the first appellate authority
|
P-15
|
48
|
|
21.
|
Copy
of All the documents as provided under the provisions of RTI Act
|
P-16
|
49 TO 62
|
|
22.
|
Copy of the representation dated 04.06.2013
made to Chief Information Commissioner
|
P-17
|
63
|
|
23.
|
Copy of the
Courier receipt C/No. 1202279652 dated 07.06.2013 issued by Madhur Courier
Services; Jabalpur
|
P-18
|
64
|
|
24.
|
Copy
of the Judgment dated 21.12.2013 passed by the first Appellate authority
|
P-19
|
65
|
|
25.
|
Copy
of the representation dated 10.07.2015 made to respondent no. 6
|
P-20
|
66 TO 73
|
|
26.
|
Copy of the reminder letter dated 31.07.2016 made to
respondent no. 6
|
P-21
|
74
|
|
27.
|
VAKALATNAMA
|
|
75
|
|
28.
|
COURT
FEE
|
|
76
|
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED
: ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2016 (S)
PETITIONER : SHYAM MOHAN VERMA
Versus
RESPONDENTS : THE
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
& Ors.
DECLARATION
(Under Rule 25 of Chapter X)
The copies
as required by Rule 25 of Chapter X
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Rules, 2008, have served upon
Clerk of office of the Advocate
General for Madhya Pradesh at PM on 2016 in Jabalpur.
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATE : ADVOCATE FOR
PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHY PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION
NO. OF 2016 (S)
PETITIONER : SHYAM MOHAN VERMA
Versus
RESPONDENTS : THE
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
& Ors.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
|
S.No
|
Date
|
Events
|
|
1.
|
2007
|
Petitioner
is a peaceloving national of India and entitled for the all the benefit and
fundamental rights as enshrined in the Part III of the Constitution of India.
He was retired as a Section Officer, from Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd.
(MPPGCL, for Short) on attaining the age of supernnuation in the year 2007. Madhya
Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. (MPPGCL) is a wholly owned company of MP
Government engaged in generation of electricity in the state of Madhya
Pradesh. It is a successor entity of erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State
Electricity Board (MPSEB, for Short). The Company, while operating and
maintaining its existing units, is also constructing new Power Plants for
increasing capacity in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Presentably petitioner is a practioner advocate before
this Hon’ble High Court. Respondents are the instrumentality of state within
the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore amenable
to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court.
|
|
2.
|
|
Energy Department, Government of
Madhya Pradesh is concerned with power policy framework and administrative
control, safeguarding consumers’ interest, promotion of conventional energy
sources and efficient power system in the state. The Department is committed
to make Madhya Pradesh self-reliant in the field of power to create platform
for multi-faceted growth. To develop a financially viable and competitive
power sector that ensures quality power for all at affordable price is
objective of the Energy Department.
|
|
3.
|
11.07.2008
|
Petitioner
made an application on 11.07.2008 under the provisions of Section 6(1) the
Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information regarding (1) record in
relations to disciplinary/ departmental action together with the notesheets
against the petitioner, (2) letter No. Aa. Aa. Ya./ Ra. Sa. Pa/ Stha/ 7190
dated 26.01.2005 in which true facts were conceled, and (3) list of orders of
previous three years imposing major penalties (except the order of
retirement) additional secretary (east).
|
|
4.
|
11.08.2008
|
The
Public information officer, vide its Order No.
AaSa/PuKshe/Su.Aa./R-173/7005-06 dated 11.08.2008 and letter No. 7264 dated
21.08.2008 informed the petitioner so also other persons that the information’s
sought by the petitioner in respect of other persons therefore objection, if
any, should be made within a period of 10 days failure of which would be
presumed that they have “no say” in the matter and procedure of providing
documents to the petitioner may proceed further.
|
|
5.
|
28.08.2008
|
In
order to clarify his stand, petitioner made it clear that he sought
information regarding (1) note sheet on whose basis the suspension order and
discipline proceeding were initiated against the petitioner, (2) note sheet
on the rejection of application against 75 % of the subsistence allowance,
and (3) note sheet in relation to proposed penalty. These informations are
not in respect of third party.
|
|
6.
|
21.08.2008
|
Accordingly
the application on 11.07.2008 under the provisions of Section 6(1) the Right
to Information Act, 2005 was rejected on 21.08.2008.
|
|
7.
|
31.08.2008
|
Petitioner
preferred an Appeal on 31.08.2008 under Section 19 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 before the first appellate authority.
|
|
8.
|
27.09.2008
|
Without appreciating the true material facts
and in accordance with the misconception of the law, first appellate
authority mechanically rejected the petitioner’s appeal.
|
|
9.
|
12.11.2008
|
Petitioner
preferred a second Appeal on 12.11.2008 under Section 19 (3) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 before the State Information Commissioner.
|
|
10.
|
11.02.2010
|
The
said second appeal resulted into same fate on the ground that respond No. 4
made a wrong statement before the state information commissioner that FIR has
been lodged against the petitioner and challan has already been filed before
the Hon’ble Court therefore the documents could not be provided as per
section 8 (1) (j) of the Act.
|
|
11.
|
13.05.2010
|
Since petitioner reached Bhopal late through
Jan Shatabdi Express Train therefore he could not attend the proceeding, an
application for review was made on 13.05.2010 before the State Information
Commissioner on the grounds stated therein.
|
|
12.
|
18.02.2012
|
Petitioner made another application
on 18.02.2012 under the provisions of Section 6(1) the Right to Information
Act, 2005 seeking information regarding (1) Copy of FIR, (2) Copy of Challan,
and (3) name and address of complainant and name of court where the challan
was filed.
|
|
13.
|
19.03.2012
|
The said second application was
rejected on the ground that information sought is not clear on its terms.
|
|
14.
|
27.03.2012
|
Petitioner preferred a first appeal
on 27.03.2012 before the first appellate authority.
|
|
15.
|
23.04.2012
|
The
first appeal was disposed of on the ground that since no FIR was lodged
against the petitioner therefore no documents can be supplied.
|
|
16.
|
04.08.2012
|
Petitioner
for the redressal of his grievance, raised voice against the respondent No. 5
by submitting a representation dated 04.08.2012 seeking appropriate stern
action against the person who made categorically incorrect/wrong statement
before the state information commissioner.
|
|
17.
|
08.03.2013
|
Vide
Order dated 08.03.2013 first appellate authority passed an order directing
the public information officer to provide the documents sought for by the
petitioner along with the reminder letters issued to respondent No. 5 in
relation to false information given by him.
|
|
18.
|
04.06.2013
|
Petitioner made a representation on
04.06.2013 to Chief Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, Madhya Pradesh Suchna Bhawan, 35-B,
Arera Hills, Bhopal – 462 011 (Madhya Pradesh) seeking strict disciplinary action
against the respondent No. 5.
|
|
19.
|
07.06.2013
|
Its
Courier receipt C/No. 1202279652 dated 07.06.2013 issued by Madhur Courier
Services; Jabalpur
|
|
20.
|
21.12.2013
|
Vide
Judgment dated 21.12.2013 passed by the First Appellate authority whereby and
where under while affirming the order passed by public information officer,
dismissed the appeal holding that any action would be intuited in accordance
with directions of Information Commissioner.
|
|
21.
|
10.07.2015
|
Petitioner
made a representation on 10.07.2015 to chief information Commissioner, Bhopal
in terms of order dated 04.06.2013 passed by first appellate authority to
take appropriate action against the respondent No. 5.
|
|
22.
|
31.07.2016
|
Petitioner
also sent a reminder to the Chief Information Commissioner.
|
|
23.
|
03.03.2010
|
Petitioner
preferred a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
against inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not taking any
action against the respondent No. 5 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya
Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur.
|
PLACE
: JABALPUR
DATED
: ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER
Format No. 7
(Chapter X, Rule
23)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. OF
2014 (S).
CAUSE TITLE
PETITIONER : SHYAM MOHAN VERMA, Aged
about 67 years, Son of Late Mr. M. L. Verma,
Advocate and Retired Section Officer, R/o House No. 1044, Prabhat Nagar,
Vivekanand Ward, Near Lakhan Dairy, Yadav Colony, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh),
Idea : 98262-26255
Versus
RESPONDENTS : 1A. THE
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Through the Additional Chief Secretary,
Energy Department, Ministry, 312-C,Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh).
Phone : 0755-244 1675 e-mail : acsenergymp@gmail.com
1B. Principal Secretary - New &
Renewable Energy Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Madhya
Pradesh) Email: mduvn@mp.gov.in
Phone: 0755-255 1804, Fax:
0755-255 3122
2. Commissioner, New & Renewable Energy,
Main Road No. 2, Urja Bhawan, Near 5 No. Bus Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal – 462 016,
(Madhya Pradesh).Email: mduvnb@gmail.com Phone: 0755-255 6526, Fax:
0755-255 3122
3. Madhya
Pradesh Power Generating Company Limited (MPPGCL),
Through the Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, PO: Vidyut Nagar, Rampur,
Jabalpur – 482 008 (Madhya Pradesh).
4. Deputy
Commissioner - Office of the Commissioner (New & Renewable Energy), Main
Road No. 2, Urja Bhawan, Near 5 No. Bus Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal - 462 016, (Madhya
Pradesh) –E-mail: mpnred@gmail.com
Phone: 0755-255 1438 Fax: 0755-255 3122
5. Mr. Mridul Khare, Deputy Commissioner - Office of the
Commissioner (New & Renewable Energy), Main Road No. 2, Urja Bhawan, Near 5
No. Bus Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal - 462 016, (Madhya Pradesh). Email: mpnred@gmail.com Phone:
0755-255 1438 Fax: 0755-255 3122
6.
Madhya Pradesh State Information
Commission, Through the Registrar, Madhya Pradesh Suchna Bhawan, 35-B, Arera
Hills, Bhopal – 462 011 (Madhya Pradesh). Phone : 0755-255 6871 & 255 6879.
(Writ Petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India).
1. Particulars of the
Cause/ Order against which the petition is made:
(1) Date of
Order / Notification/ Circular / Policy/ Decision Etc. : NIL
(2)
Passed in (Case Or File Number) : NIL
(3)
Passed by (Name and Designation of the
Court, Authority, Tribunal Etc.) : NIL
(4)
Subject
– matter in brief: By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
High Court by calling in question the legality, validity, propriety and
correctness of the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not taking
any action against the delinquent employee i. e. respondoent No. 5 inspite of
the fact that the petitioner is taking every steps from pillar to post so as to
initiate strict departmental action against the respondent No. 5. Respondent
authorities are under legal obligation to take appropriate proceedings/ action
against the respondent No. 4 on the ground that (i) The act and omission is such as to reflect on the
reputation of the Government servant for his integrity or good faith or
devotion to duty, or (ii) there is prima facie material manifesting
recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of the official duty, or (iii) the
officer had failed to act honestly or in good faith or had omitted to observe
the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of statutory
power. (iv) if he had acted negligently or that he
omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the
statutory powers; (v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party; (vi)
if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however, small the bribe may be
because Lord Coke said long ago though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is
great.
2. A declaration that
no proceeding on the same subject matter has been previously instituted in any
Court, Authority or Tribunal, if instituted, the Status or result thereof,
along with copy of the Order:
Petitioner declares that no proceeding on the same subject
matter has been previously instituted in any Court, Authority or Tribunal.
3. Details of the
remedied exhausted :
The petitioner declares that he has availed all statutory
and other remedies.
4. Delay, if any, in
filing the petition and explanation therefor
It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that there is
no delay in filing of the instant writ petition.
5.
Facts of the Case :
Petitioner
is a peaceloving national of India and entitled for the all the benefit and
fundamental rights as enshrined in the Part III of the Constitution of India. He
was retired as a Section Officer, from Madhya Pradesh Power
Generating Co. Ltd. (MPPGCL, for Short) on attaining the age of supernnuation in the month of January,
2008. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. (MPPGCL) is a
wholly owned company of MP Government engaged in generation of electricity in
the state of Madhya Pradesh. It is a successor entity of erstwhile Madhya
Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPSEB, for Short). The Company, while
operating and maintaining its existing units, is also constructing new Power
Plants for increasing capacity in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Presentably petitioner is a practioner
advocate before this Hon’ble High Court. Respondents are the instrumentality of
state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and
therefore amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court.
Energy Department, Government
of Madhya Pradesh is concerned with power policy framework and administrative
control, safeguarding consumers’ interest, promotion of conventional energy
sources and efficient power system in the state. The Department is committed to
make Madhya Pradesh self-reliant in the field of power to create platform for
multi-faceted growth. To develop a financially viable and competitive power
sector that ensures quality power for all at affordable price is objective of
the Energy Department.
Petitioner
made an application on 11.07.2008 under the provisions of Section 6(1) the
Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information regarding (1) record in
relations to disciplinary/ departmental action together with the notesheets against
the petitioner, (2) letter No. Aa. Aa. Ya./ Ra. Sa. Pa/ Stha/ 7190 dated 26.01.2005
in which true facts were conceled, and (3) list of orders of previous three
years imposing major penalties (except the order of retirement) Additional Secretary,
Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited. Copy of the
application dated 11.07.2008 under the provisions of Section 6(1) the Right to
Information Act, 2005 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-1.
The
Public information officer, vide its Order No. AaSa/PuKshe/Su.Aa./R-173/7005-06
dated 11.08.2008 and letter No. 7264 dated 21.08.2008 informed the petitioner
so also other persons that the information’s sought by the petitioner in
respect of other persons therefore objection, if any, should be made within a
period of 10 days failure of which would be presumed that they have “no say” in
the matter and procedure of providing documents to the petitioner may proceed
further. Copy of the memo dated 11.08.2008 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-2.
In
order to clarify his stand, petitioner made it clear that he sought information
regarding himself (1) note sheet on whose basis the suspension order and
discipline proceeding were initiated against the petitioner, (2) note sheet on
the rejection of application against 75 % of the subsistence allowance, and (3)
note sheet in relation to proposed penalty. These informations are not in respect
of third party. Copy of the application dated 28.08.2008 is filed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-3.
Accordingly
the application on 11.07.2008 under the provisions of Section 6(1) the Right to
Information Act, 2005 was rejected on 21.08.2008. Copy of the rejection Order
dated 21.08.2008 under the provisions of Section 6(1) the Right to Information
Act, 2005 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-4.
Petitioner preferred an Appeal on 31.08.2008
under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the first appellate
authority. Copy of the memo of appeal
dated 31.08.2008 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-5.
Without appreciating the true material facts and in accordance with the
misconception of the law, first appellate authority mechanically rejected the
petitioner’s appeal. Copy of the Order dated 27.09.2008 passed by first
appellate authority is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-6.
Petitioner preferred a second Appeal on
12.11.2008 under Section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before
the State Information Commissioner. Copy
of the memo of appeal dated 12.11.2008 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-7. The said second appeal resulted into same fate on the ground that
respond No. 4 made a wrong statement before the state information commissioner
that FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and challan has already been
filed before the Hon’ble Court therefore the documents could not be provided as
per section 8 (1) (j) of the Act. Copy of the order dated 11.02.2010 passed by
State Information Commissioner is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P- 8. Since petitioner reached Bhopal late through Jan Shatabdi Express
Train therefore he could not attend the proceeding, an application for review
was made on 13.05.2010 before the State Information Commissioner on the grounds
stated therein. Copy of the review application dated 13.05.2010 is filed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-9.
Petitioner
made another application on 18.02.2012 under the provisions of Section 6(1) the
Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information regarding (1) Copy of FIR,
(2) Copy of Challan, and (3) name and address of complainant and name of court
where the challan was filed. Copy of the second application on 18.02.2012 under
the provisions of Section 6(1) the Right to Information Act, 2005 is filed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-10. The said second application
was rejected on the ground that information sought is not clear on its terms.
Copy of the rejection order dated 19.03.2012 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-11. Petitioner preferred a first appeal on 27.03.2012 before the
first appellate authority. Copy of the memo of appeal dated 27.03.2012 is filed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-12. The first appeal was
disposed of on the ground that since no FIR was lodged against the petitioner
therefore no documents can be supplied. Copy of the Order dated 23.04.2012
passed by first appellate authority is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-13.
Petitioner
for the redressal of his grievance, raised voice against the respondent No. 5
by submitting a representation dated 04.08.2012 seeking appropriate stern
action against the person who made categorically incorrect/wrong statement
before the state information commissioner. Copy of the representation dated
04.08.2012 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-14.
Vide
Order dated 08.03.2013 first appellate authority passed an order directing the
public information officer to provide the documents sought for by the
petitioner along with the reminder letters issued to respondent No. 5 in
relation to false information given by him. Copy of the Judgment dated
08.03.2013 passed by the first appellate authority is filed herewith and marked
as Annexure A-15. All the documents as provided under the
provisions of RTI Act is filed herewith and collectively marked as Annexure
P-16.
Petitioner
made a representation on 04.06.2013 to Chief Information Commissioner, State Information
Commission, Madhya Pradesh Suchna Bhawan, 35-B, Arera Hills, Bhopal – 462 011 (Madhya Pradesh)
seeking strict disciplinary action against the respondent No. 5. Copy of the representation
dated 04.06.2013 made to Chief
Information Commissioner is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-17.
Its Courier receipt C/No. 1202279652 dated 07.06.2013 issued by Madhur Courier
Services; Jabalpur is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-18.
Vide
Judgment dated 21.12.2013 passed by the First Appellate authority whereby and
where under while affirming the order passed by public information officer,
dismissed the appeal holding that any action would be intuited in accordance
with directions of Information Commissioner. Copy of the Judgment dated
21.12.2013 passed by the first Appellate authority is filled herewith and
marked as Annexure P-19.
Petitioner
made a representation on 10.07.2015 to chief information Commissioner, Bhopal
in terms of order dated 04.06.2013 passed by first appellate authority to take appropriate
action against the respondent No. 5. Copy of the representation dated
10.07.2015 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-20.
Petitioner also sent a reminder to the Chief Information Commissioner. Copy of
the reminder letter dated 31.07.2016 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-21. But nothing has been done so far. Hence this petition on
following grounds amongst the others :
6. Grounds urged :
A.
That WRONG
information by CPIO is shear failure of IT official working in CIT office to implement
the RTI as per section 4 (1)
(a) of RTI Act."
Impose penalties as per RTI Act 2005
on CPIO forgiving WRONG information and unnecessary delay."
B.
Because in a leading English case Derry
v. Peek [(1886-90) ALL ER Rep 1: (1889) 14 AC 337 (HL)] what constitutes fraud
was described thus: (All Er p. 22 B-C) 'Fraud is proved when it is shown that a
false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its
truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false'." This
aspect of the matter has been considered recently by the Apex Court in Roshan
Deen v. Preeti Lal (2002 (1) SCC 100) Ram
Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (2003 (8) SCC 311), Ram Chandra
Singh's case (supra) and Ashok
Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. and Another(2004 (3) SCC 1).
C.
Because Suppression of a material
document would also amount to a fraud on the court. (see Gowrishankar
v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust (1996
(3) SCC 310) and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu's case (supra). "Fraud" is
a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or
authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct
of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud but
it can be evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti Yadav's case (supra).
D. Because in Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 QB 702, Lord
Denning observed at pages 712 & 713, "No judgment of a Court, no order
of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud
unravels everything." In the same judgment Lord Parker LJ observed that
fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of
solemnity. (page 722) These aspects were highlighted in the State of
Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. T. Suryachandr Rao (2005 (5) SCALE 621)
E.
Because the
Apex Court in the case of Hari
Narain v. Badri Das, reported in [1964] 2 SCR 203 revoked the
special leave granted to the appellant and dismissed the appeal for making
inaccurate, untrue and misleading statement in SLP observing that "It
is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth
grounds in applications for special leave, care must be taken not to make any
statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with
application for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and
grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be
unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are
untrue and misleading. That is why we have come to the conclusion that in the
present case, special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked.
Accordingly, special leave is revoked and the appeal is dismissed. The
appellant will pay the costs of the respondent."
F.
Because
the Again in the case of Rajabhai Abdul Rehman.Munshi v. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody,
reported in [1964] 3 SCR 480, the Apex Court observed that "exercise of
the jurisdiction of the Court under Article
136 of the Constitution is discretionary; it is exercised sparingly
and in exceptional cases, when a substantial question of law falls to be
determined or where it appears to the Court that interference by this Court is
necessary to remedy serious injustice. A party who approaches this Court
invoking the exercise of this overriding discretion of the Court must come with
clean hands. If there appears on his part any attempt to overreach or mislead
the Court by false or untrue statements or by withholding true information
which would have a bearing on the question of exercise of the discretion, the
Court would be justified in refusing to exercise the discretion or if the
discretion has been exercised in revoking the leave to appeal granted even at
the time of hearing of the appeal."
G. Because in the same judgment,
Hidayatullah, J. concurring with judgment of Shah J. delivered on behalf of
himself and Sarkar J., added that "I have considered the matter
carefully. This is not a case of a mere error in the narration of facts or of a
bona fide error of judgment which in certain circumstances may be considered to
be venial faults. This is a case of being disingenuous with the Court by making
out a point of law on a suppositious state of facts, which facts, if told
candidly, leave no room for the discussion of law. The appellant has by
dissembling in this Court induced it to grant special leave in a case which did
not merit it. I agree, therefore, that this leave should be recalled and the appellant,
made to pay the costs of this appeal."
H. Because Because the respondent
authorities failed to appreciate that the act of omission/commission on the
part of the respondent No. 5 in discharging
the duties was found to be covered
under rule 3 of the Conduct
Rules, 1965.
I.
Because the
respondent authorities ought to have appreciated that statement of respondent
No. 5
was found to be misleading in nature and an attempt to cover up the lapses and negligence in discharge
of duties.
J.
The respondent
authorities committed grave error and irregularity in not considering that the
act respondent No. 5 and omission is such as
to reflect on the reputation of the Government servant for his integrity or
good faith or devotion to duty.
K.
Because
respondent authorities ought to have appreciated that there is prima facie material manifesting
recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of the official duty.
L.
Because
the respondent authorities failed to appreciate that the respondent No. 5 had failed to act honestly or in good faith or
had omitted to observe the prescribed conditions which are essential for the
exercise of statutory power.
M.Because respondent authorities illegality in not considering that
Respondent No. 5 had acted
negligently and that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential
for the exercise of the statutory powers.
N. Because respondent authorities ought
to appreciated that respondent No. 4
had acted in order to unduly favour a party.
O. Because respondent No. 5 had been actuated by corrupt motive, however,
small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago though the bribe may be
small, yet the fault is great
7. Relief Prayed for :
(a) That the Hon’ble High court shall be pleased
to call for the entire original record of lis
for its kind perusal.
(b) That the Hon’ble High Court shall be pleased
to issue suitable writ or direction to the respondent authorities to take
suitable and appropriate proceedings/action against respondent No. 5.
(c) Cost of this petition be also awarded in
favour of the petitioner.
Any other relief
deemed fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may
also be granted.
8.
Interim Order / Writ, if prayed for :
In view of the facts and circumstance
of the case during pendency of instant writ petition respondent No. 5 may
kindly be restrained from interfering with records of petitioner’s grivances,
in the larger interest of justice.
Documents relied on but not in
possession of the petitioner :
All the relevant material and original records in relation
to subject matter in dispute is lying with respondent authorities which my
kindly be requisitioned by the Hon’ble High Court for its kind perusal.
9. Caveat :
That, no
notice of lodging a caveat by the opposite party is received.
PLACE
: JABALPUR
DATED:
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION
NO. OF 2016 (S)
PETITIONER : SHYAM MOHAN VERMA
Versus
RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
& Ors.
AFFIDAVIT
I, SHYAM
MOHAN VERMA, Aged about 67 years, Son of Late Mr. M. L. Verma, Advocate and Retired
Section Officer, R/o House No. 1044, Prabhat Nagar, Vivekanand Ward, Near
Lakhan Dairy, Yadav Colony, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), Idea : 98262-26255 do
hereby state on oath as under :
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above mentioned writ
petition and am fully conversant with the facts deposed to in the Writ
Petition.
2.
That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 10 of the accompanying writ petition
are true to my personal knowledge and the contents of paragraphs are based on
legal advice, which I believe to be true. No material has been concealed and no
part is false.
3.
That the Annexure No(s). P-1 to P-21 to the accompanying writ petition
are true copies of the originals and I have compared the said Annexures with
their respective originals and certify them to be true copies thereof.
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED : DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, SHYAM MOHAN
VERMA, the above named deponent do hereby verify on oath that the contents of
the affidavit above are true to my personal knowledge and nothing material has
been concealed or falsely stated. Verified at ______this______day of _______
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION
NO. OF 2016 (S)
PETITIONER : SHYAM
MOHAN VERMA
Versus
RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
& Ors.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
|
S.No
|
Description of document
|
Date of document
|
Original copy
|
Number of page
|
|
1.
|
Application
under the provisions of Section 6(1) the Right to Information Act, 2005
|
11.07.2008
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
2.
|
memo issued
by PIO
|
11.08.2008
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
3.
|
application
filed by petitioner
|
28.08.2008
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
4.
|
rejection
Order under the provisions of Section 6(1) the Right to Information Act, 2005
|
21.08.2008
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
5.
|
memo
of appeal
|
31.08.2008
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
6.
|
Order passed by first appellate authority
|
27.09.2008
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
7.
|
memo of appeal
|
12.11.2008
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
8.
|
order passed by State Information Commissioner
|
11.02.2010
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
9.
|
review application
|
13.05.2010
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
10.
|
second
application on under the provisions of Section 6(1) the Right to Information
Act, 2005
|
18.02.2012
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
11.
|
rejection
order
|
19.03.2012
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
12.
|
memo
of appeal
|
27.03.2012
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
13.
|
Order
passed by first appellat1e authority
|
23.04.2012
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
14.
|
Representation
|
04.08.2012
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
15.
|
Judgment
passed by the first appellate authority
|
08.03.2013
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
16.
|
All
the documents as provided under the provisions of RTI Act
|
|
Xerox
|
14 (Fourteen)
|
|
17.
|
Representation made to Chief Information Commissioner
|
04.06.2013
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
18.
|
Courier
receipt C/No. 1202279652 dated issued by Madhur Courier Services; Jabalpur
|
07.06.2013
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
19.
|
Judgment
passed by the first Appellate authority
|
21.12.2013
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
20.
|
Representation
made to respondent no. 6
|
10.07.2015
|
Xerox
|
08 (Eight)
|
|
21.
|
Reminder letter made to respondent no. 6
|
31.07.2016
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
PLACE
: JABALPUR:
DATED
: ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER
APPENDIX 1-A
FORMAT OF V A K A L A T N A M A
[Rules 4 (1) of the Rules framed under the Advocates Act,
1961]
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2016 (S)
PETITIONER : SHYAM MOHAN VERMA
Versus
RESPONDENTS : THE
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
& Ors.
I, the petitioner named below do
hereby appoint, engage and authorize advocate (s) named below to appear, act and plead in aforesaid case /
proceeding, which shall include applications for restoration, setting aside for
ex - parte orders, corrections, modifications, review and recall of orders
assed in these proceedings, in this Court or in any other Court in which the
same may be tried / heard / proceeded with and also in the appellate,
revisional or executing Court in respect of the proceedings arising from this
case / proceedings as per agreed terms and conditions and authorize them to
sign and file pleadings , appeals,
cross objections, petitions, applications, affidavits, or the other documents
as may be deemed necessary and proper for the prosecution / defence of the said case in all its stages
and also agrees to ratify and confirm acts done by them as if done by me.
In witness whereof I do hereby set my hands to these
presents, the contents of which have been duly understood by me, this – day of
----------------- 2016 at Jabalpur.
Particulars (in block letters) of each Party Executing
Vakalatnama
|
Name and father s / Husband s Name
|
Registered Address
|
E-Mail Address (if any)
|
Telephone Number (if any)
|
Status in the case
|
Full Signature/
**Thumb Impression
|
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
(5)
|
(6)
|
|
|
PETITIONER
|
|
Accepted
Particulars (in block letters) of each Advocate Accepting
Vakalatnama
|
|
Full
Name & Enrollment No. in State Bar Council
|
Address
for Service
|
E-mail
Address (if any)
|
Telephone
Number (if any)
|
Full
Signature
|
|
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
(5)
|
|
1.
|
VIJAY
RAGHAV SINGH
EN.
No. M. P. / ADV / 1554 / 2003
|
SEAT
NO. 93, GOLDEN JUBILEE BUILDING, CHAMBER NO. 317, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT
PREMISES, JABALPUR 482 001
|
vijayraghav_singh@rediffmail.com
|
IDEA 98261-43925
|
|
|
2.
|
VIJAY
KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, EN. No. M. P. / ADV
/ 949/ 2006
|
SEAT
NO. 81, HALL NO. 1, FIRST FLOOR, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT PREMISES, JABALPUR
482 001
|
NIL
|
RIM 93015 04927
AIRTEL 97554 82448
|
|
|
3.
|
AMIT
KUMAR KHARE,
EN.
No. M. P. / ADV / 1291/ 2006
|
HOUSE
NO. 1483 / 17, SARASWATI COLONY, BEHIND PARIJAT BUILDING, CHERITAL, JABALPUR
482 001
|
NIL
|
BSNL 94258 66726
LAND LINE
0761 - 2345 005
|
|
*Score
out which is not applicable
**
The thumb impression shall be attested by a literate person giving above
particulars.
No comments:
Post a Comment