Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Supreme Court of India filed on 09.11.2016

FILING INDEX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION CRIMINAL NO. OF 2016

IN

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO. 136 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH & ANR ………….PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS …………….RESPONDENT

S.N Particulars Copies Court Fees

1. Memo of Appearance 1

2. ID Proof duly signed 1

3. Order under Challenge 1+3

4. Review Petition (Crl.) with

Affidavit

1+3

5. Certificate 1+3

6. Annexures P-1 to P-9 1+3

Petitioner in Person

Filed on: 09.11.2016 Om Prakash

Vide Diary No. 37613 RZF-893, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG

RAJ NAGAR PART-2, PALAM COLONY

NEW DELHI-110077MOB:9968337815

E-mail: [email protected]



REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2016

IN

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 136 OF 2016

Review Petition (Criminal) under Article 137 of the Constitution of India arising out of the final Order dated 21.10.2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 136 of 2016 with A Prayer for review and reconsideration. IN THE MATTER OF: OM PRAKASH & ANR …………..PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ….RESPONDENT

PAPER BOOK (FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

PAGES FROM TO

PETITIONER IN PERSON

OM PRAKASH

INDEX

S.N Particulars Page No.

1. Memo of Appearance ‘A’

2. Synopsis and list of dates B-H

3. Review Petition (Criminal) along with

Affidavit in support.

4. Certificate

5. Annexure: P-1

A True Copy of Letter-Petition

dated 19.08.2016 to Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of India by the

Petitioner.

6. Annexure: P-2

A True Copy of RTI reply by Ld. CJM

Begusarai dated 27.08.2016 to the

petitioner

7. Annexure: P-3

A True Copy of application before

the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

for mentioning of fresh matter

urgently dated 03.10.2016 along

with Affidavit by the petitioner

through R&I as well as through

Registry.

8. Annexure: P-4

A True Copy of filing index of

Urgent Mentioning application

before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India’s Court through Mentioning

Officer dated 06.10.2016 by the

petitioner through Caveat clearance

Counter without receipt.

9. Annexure: P-5

A True Copy of order dated

07.10.2016 passed by this Hon’ble

Court in Writ (Crl.) 136 of 2016.

10. Annexure: P-6



Chief Justice of India by the

petitioner no.02.

11. Annexure: P-7

A True Copy of application for

constitution bench along with

Affidavit dated 18.10.2016 vide

diary no. 77878 filed against Writ

Petition (Criminal) 136 of 2016

12. Annexure: P-8

A True Copy of certified copy of

office report dated 20.10.2016 by

the Registrar, Section X in Writ

(Crl.) 136 of 2016.

13. Annexure: P-9

A True Copy of final Order under

Challenge dated 21.10.2016 passed

by this Hon’ble Court in Writ

Petition (Criminal) 136 of 2016

‘A’




IN

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO. OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH & ANR …PETITIONER

VERSUS


MEMO OF APPEARANCE

To

The Registrar

Supreme Court of India

New Delhi

Sir,

Please enter my appearance Petitioner-in-Person

in the above mentioned matter:

New Delhi

Dated this the day of 2016

Yours faithfully,

(OM PRAKASH )

Petitioner-in-Person

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

The present review petition under Article 137 of

the Constitution of India is being filed to review

and reconsider the final order dated 21.10.2016

passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ

(Criminal) 136 of 2016 by which this Hon’ble

Court has dismissed the petition with liberty

and directed the petitioner to approach Patna

High Court, which would have far reaching

consequences against the interest of public at

large and against the right of Senior Citizen

Woman in particular and would shake the public

confidence by reason of the association or

closeness of judge with the subject matter of

dispute; establish wrong precedent of

procedural Judicial system, encourage

malfunctioning of the State Apparatus; weaken

the basic fabric of the institutions; ignore

constitutional priority; which has caused

gross injustice, violated the principle of

natural justice, ignored the principle of ex

debito justitiae and resulted in miscarriage

of justice.

23.07.2013 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi pronounced

Judgment in MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012 in

favor of petitioner on the ground of

certified copy of Begusarai Court in

case no.9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic

violence Act and after three SLP(C)

no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013,

SLP(C) no. 19073/2013 before this

Hon’ble Court.

19.08.2016 Letter-Petition against Ld. CJM Court

Begusarai affecting the administration

of Justice dated 19.08.2016 vide diary

no. 35529 has been rejected by this

Hon’ble Court as it did not cover

under the guideline of PIL; although

the matter in the larger public

interest.

27.08.2016 Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Public

Information Officer District Court

Begusarai Bihar has furnished false

and frivolous RTI reply dated

27.08.2016 received on 01.09.2016.

30.08.2016 That aggrieved by the false RTI reply

dated 27.08.2016 furnished by the Ld.

CJM Begusarai, petitioner filed Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 on

30.08.2016 before this Hon’ble Court

for quashing of frivolous criminal

proceedings 498A pending before Ld.

CJM division Begusarai since

07.02.2011 without the knowledge of

petitioner and after the settlement of

matter by the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi.

03.10.2016 Application before Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India for mentioning of

fresh matter urgent listing earlier

than the scheduled date and urgent

relief is sought against Writ Petition

Criminal 136 of 2016 has been

submitted through R&I department of

this Hon’ble Court after huge hue and

cry as initially R&I refused to take

this Dak and subsequently filed

through filing counter of Party in

Person as well on the same date.

06.10.2016 That the petitioner applied for

urgent mentioning of the matter


India through Mentioning officer of

this Hon’ble Court on 06.10.2016

without routing through the

registry through Caveat clearance

counter. However, mentioning officer

of this Hon’ble Court has

intentionally listed my urgent

mentioning application before Court

No.06 instead of Hon’ble the chief

Justice of India’s Court in the

evening of 06.10.2016 despite of my

strong protest.

07.10.2016 petitioner submitted before the

Hon’ble bench of Court no.06 that the

mentioning officer has cheated the

petitioner and intentionally listed

the matter for mentioning before this

court. Hence, order dated 07.10.2016

passed by this Hon’ble Court.

08.10.2016 Aggrieved by the intentional act of

mentioning officer the petitioner

no.02 has submitted Letter-Petition

dated 08.10.2016 before Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of India through email

against rampant atrocities on Senior

Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,

OBC, voiceless, rural woman in two

states viz. Bihar as well as in Delhi

since 12 years to Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India.

13.10.2016 petitioner no.02 has again submitted

Letter-Petition dated 13.10.2016


India through speed post and by hand

against rampant atrocities on Senior

Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,

OBC, voiceless, rural woman in two

states viz. Bihar as well as in Delhi

since 12 years.

17.10.2016 Petitioner being called on 17.10.2016

by the mentioning officer for fresh

application for urgent mentioning

however petitioner being harassed

whole day from PRO to mentioning

officer and directly refused by the

mentioning officer as his role is over

now.

18.10.2016 Upon direct refusal by mentioning

officer to allow the petitioner to

mention the matter before Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of India as per the

provisions laid down in the handbook

of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and

the schedule listing of the matter

fixed by the registry on 21.10.2016;

the petitioner left with no option and

filed an application for listing this

matter before the constitution bench

of seven Judges vide diary no. 77878

dated 18.10.2016.

20.10.2016 Office-report against Writ Petition

Criminal 136 of 2016 has neither been

supplied by Registrar, Section X nor

been uploaded at the website of

Hon’ble Apex Court. Petitioner has

applied for the certified copy of the

same on 28.10.2016 with an application

registration no. A1-32350/2016 vide

diary no. PC-732 and received on

08.11.2016.

21.10.2016 During the course of hearing on

21.10.2016, petitioner being directed

by the Hon’ble bench to engage

Advocate although the petitioner has

clarified in writing the strong reason

for not engaging any Advocate or legal

Aid in the petition as well as during

the interaction interview with the

Registrar. Petitioner has not being

heard properly by the Hon’ble bench

and order has been passed with an

error apparent on the face of the

record against the petitioner

violating the principles of Natural

Justice which has resulted in gross

miscarriage of justice.

09.11.2016 Hence the review Petition.




IN


BETWEEN

1. Om Prakash ………PETITIONER NO.01

S/O Late Sh Deep Narayan Poddar

R/O RZF-893, Netaji Sbhash Marg

Raj Nagar Part-2,

Palam Colony

New Delhi-110077

2. Widow Asha Devi ……PETITIONER NO.02

W/o Late Sh. Deep Narayan Poddar

R/O ASHA DEEP NIWAS

Vill-Kantiya Panchayat,

Shukkar Haat Sonaili,

In front of Durga Mandir

P.S. Kadwa, Distt-Katihar

Bihar-855114

VERSUES

1. State of Bihar ….RESPONDENT No.01

Through Chief Secretary,

Old Secretariat, Patna-800015

2. The Hon’ble Patna ….RESPONDENT No.02

High Court,

Through

Hon’ble Registrar General,

Patna High Court

Patna-800028

3. Ld. CJM Court ….RESPONDENT No.03

Through Ld. CJM

Begusarai, Bihar

Civil Court, Ld. CJM Division

at Begusarai, Bihar

4. The Secretary ….RESPONDENT No.04

Cum-Legal Remembrancer

Law Department, Government of Bihar

Main Secretariat Patna-800015

REVIEW PETITION CRIMINAL UNDER ARTICLE

137 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ON THE

GROUND OF AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE

OF RECORD.

To

Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and His

Lordship's Companion Justices of the

Supreme Court of India. The Humble review

petition Criminal of the Petitioner

abovenamed.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. FACTS OF THE CASSE

i. That the present review petition

criminal under Article 137 of the

Constitution of India read with Hon’ble

Supreme Court Rules 1966 on the ground of

an error apparent on the face of record for

review of the final Order dated 21.10.2016


(Criminal) 136 of 2016 by which this

Hon’ble Court has dismissed the petition

with liberty and directed the petitioner to

approach Patna High Court, which would have

far reaching consequences against the

interest of public at large and against the

right of Senior Citizen Woman in particular

and would shake the public confidence by

reason of the association or closeness of

judge with the subject matter of dispute;

establish wrong precedent of procedural

Judicial System, encourage malfunctioning

of the State Apparatus; weaken the basic

fabric of the institutions; ignore

constitutional priority; which has caused

gross injustice to the petitioner, violated

the principle of natural justice, ignored

the principle of ex debito justitiae and

resulted in miscarriage of justice.

ii. That the Constitution of India

assigned a pivotal role on to the Supreme Court

providing therein the supremacy of law with the

rationale being justice is above all. The

exercise of inherent power of this Court also

stands recognized by Order XLVII Rule 6 of the

Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which reads as

below:

“Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to

limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers

of the Court to make such orders as may be

necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent

abuse of the process of the Court."

iii. That Hon’ble bench has passed the final order

dated 21.10.2016 in Writ Criminal 136 of 2016

without taking into account the face of records

that the matter has already been settled by the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013 in

MAT.APPL. NO. 7 of 2012 in favor of petitioner

on the ground of certified copy of Begusarai

Court in case no.9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic

violence Act and after three SLP(C) no.

9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no.

19073/2013 before this Hon’ble Court.

iv. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that the petitioner

has not approached this Hon’ble Court for

dispute settlement but for strong punitive

action against the bad elements of the State

Apparatus in two states who are indulged in

affecting the administration of Justice; which

has resulted in miscarriage of Justice.

Petitioner has elicited data at the cost of his

whole life and placed on record before this

Hon’ble Apex Court for necessary stern legal

action.

v. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into


has filed interlocutory application for

Constitution bench on 18.10.2016 vide diary no.

77878 against the Writ Petition Criminal 136 of

2016. Petitioner did raise ‘substantial

question of law as to the interpretation of the

Constitution and this Hon’ble Court was not

required to decide any ‘interlocutory and

miscellaneous application’ ‘connected with the

petition’. The petitioner’s written submissions

also contain these averments in Writ Petition

page 18, (para g, h) page 19 (para i) and page

26(para I, J and K).

vi. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into


has placed on record the bad elements of Legal

Aid Institutions in India and urged to take

punitive action against them to strengthen the

institutions.

vii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that the matter is

full of bloodshed which has been caused by the

bad element of state apparatus those have been

given license to preserve, protect and adhere

the Rule of law. The petitioner’s written

submissions contain these averments in page

27(para L); subsequent clarification by

Registrar dated 07.09.2016 at page 53 (Ans. of

defects of para 08, Ground L); page 27(para N);

subsequent clarification by Registrar dated

07.09.2016 at page 54 (Ans. of defects of para

08, Ground N);

viii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that handicapped

father of the petitioner was encircled to death

by the nexus of Mafia and state Apparatus in

2007 untimely. The flame of the funeral of the

petitioner’s father has not extinguished till

date and still flaming in the mind of the

petitioner.

ix. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that petitioner has

approached this Hon’ble Court to plead to take

strong punitive action against them who want to

establish the hegemony of bad element of state

apparatus and want to govern the mind and body

of the vulnerable common mass.

x. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that the criminal

proceeding has taken place in the state of

Bihar because of dismissal of all SLP(C) no.

9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no.

19073/2013 of the petitioner by this Hon’ble

Court which has encouraged the morale of bad

elements of State Apparatus in Bihar as well as

in Delhi. 498A is the outcome of this

encouragement.

xi. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that Petitioner is a

victim of malfunctioning of two State Apparatus

viz. Delhi as well as Bihar.

xii. That the order dated 21.10.2016 of this Hon’ble

Court has totally ignored the jurisdiction

“ground K” taken at page no. 26 in the petition

and the clarification sought by the Registrar

dated 07.09.2016 at page no. 50 to 57 in the

Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016.

xiii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that the cause of

action is the same and the jurisdictions of two

states are involved in it. The first cause of

action arose in the south west district of

Delhi and has been settled by the Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013 on the ground of

certified copy of Ld. District Court, Begusarai

Bihar, in MAT. APPL. No. 7 of 2012. Trial for

the same cause of action cannot be conducted in

the two states by two Hon’ble High Courts at

different point of time after the settlement by

one Hon’ble High Court.

xiv. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into


case u/s 498A is not maintainable in the state

of Bihar and is maintainable in the South West

District of Delhi and F.I.R is to be lodged at

Palam Village Police Station, south west

district at New Delhi wherein the client of

Respondent No.04 has last resided till

15.04.2005. However, in this matter the client

of Respondent No.04 has filed a criminal case

complaint u/s 498A in the state of Bihar after

a gap of 6 years on 07.02.2011 without an F.I.R

and without police diary and without the

intimation to the petitioner no.01 and 02 as on

date and after the closure of frivolous Case

No.9P of 2010 u/s domestic violence Act which

was instituted on 30.03.2010 before the same

Ld. CJM division Begusarai.

xv. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into


case complaint (P) no. 397C of 2011 new CIS

generated No. 5591 of 2013 has been filed on

07.02.2011 and the client of Respondent no.04

has appeared before Ld. Trial Court at New

Delhi on 09.02.2011 in case no. HMA-700 of

2010 and supplied the copy of case no. 9P of

2010 u/s 12 of domestic violence with N.B.W

issued dated 25.08.2010 and did not supply the

copy of criminal case complaint (P) no. 397C of

2011 new CIS generated No. 5591 of 2013 u/s

498A to the Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi with

criminal intention and managed to get issued

N.B.W dated 08.09.2011, Process u/s 83 Cr.P.C.

(this information disclosed through RTI reply

by Ld. CJM cum PIO dated 27.08.2016) and

continued to take dates up till now without the

Notice/Summon to the petitioner with criminal

intention.

xvi. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into


has already filed an application for

cancellation of N.B.W dated 25.08.2010 and

replication of complaint no.9P of 2010 u/s 43

(12) of protection of women from domestic

violence Act, 2005 for setting aside order u/s

18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 through his Ld. Advocate

Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Reg. No.6255 of 1995 on

03.03.2011. It is evident from the record of

all the three SLPs filed before this Hon’ble

Court. However, this record has been erased by

the Ld. CJM division Begusarai which has been

admitted by Ld. CJM through RTI reply dated

27.08.2016.

xvii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that India is an

independent Country and not left with any

Princely State which will be governed by its

own State’s Law. Indian states are quasi-

federal and the matter falls within the

complete jurisdiction of Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India who is competent to look into the

matter of two states jurisdiction. Hence, Writ

Petition is maintainable in view of prayers (i)

and (ii) for quashing the frivolous criminal

proceedings pending before the Ld. CJM division

Begusarai.

xviii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that fraud, corrupt,

criminal and crook respondent can institute

frivolous criminal litigations under the

judicature of all High Courts in India for the

same cause of action and for the same relief

and keep it secret on the file of the court

record against the petitioner no.01 & 02 to

affect the administration of Justice. Hence,

petitioner will be directed to approach all

High Courts with liberty by this Hon’ble Apex

Court.

xix. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account on the face of record that respondent

has made a court as a personal property;

records have been manipulated, distorted and

erased from the court records of district court

Begusarai which has been admitted by Ld. CJM

Begusarai through RTI reply dated 27.08.2016.

xx. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account on the face of record that Ld. CJM has

admitted that no case no. 9P of 2010 u/s 12 of

domestic violence Act is pending before the Ld.

CJM division Begusarai. How 498A can be

instituted after the closure of domestic

violence under the same Ld. CJM division?

xxi. That Hon’ble Court has failed to

take into account on the face of record of RTI

reply by Ld. CJM Begusarai dated 27.08.2016

which has enabled the Hon’ble Court to take

stern punitive action against the

malfunctioning of State Apparatus down the line

to act as a deterrence to strengthen the legal

& Judicial institutions in India.

xxii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to

take into account on the face of record of

voluminous evidence adduced in all the three

SLPs and Writ filed before this Hon’ble Court

that the petitioner no. 01 & 02 cannot sustain

their life either in Delhi or in Bihar without

the Hon’ble Apex Court’s intervention and

strong punitive action against the bad elements

of the State Apparatus which has caused

irreparable damage and loss to the petitioner

no.01 & 02 over the period of 12 years.

xxiii. That the matter involves an incompatible

mixture of Hon’ble Judges & Advocates on the

one hand and a vulnerable common man petitioner

in person on the other hand. This incompatible

mixture cannot board in the same compartment

and travel along with. Hon’ble Judges and

Advocates are almighty, learned person and

equivalent to GOD on this earth while a common

man is a creeping helpless and vulnerable

animal. Hence, the fight between two are

incompatible mixture. However, the Constitution

of India is above, all the individuals and all

responsible individuals are duty bound to

preserve the sanctity and dignity of our holy

Constitution at the cost of their lives.

xxiv. That the petitioner has been dragged into the

court and has been brutally assailed every

moment by these bad elements of State Apparatus

since 2010 to till date. Hon’ble Judges and

Advocates have not left a single opportunity to

harass, mentally and physically torture the

petitioner from Ld. Trial Court to this Hon’ble

Court and made him a lively dead body. During

the course of time between 2010 to till date,

petitioner has been stopped several times to

put forward the facts before the Court; many

times petitioner has been awarded Judgment at

the entry gate of the court before reaching to

the court room by the bad elements of state

apparatus. Rampant atrocities by the bad

elements of State Apparatus have made the

petitioner ill and are undergoing treatment

with AIIMS. Health of the petitioner has been

severely affected due to the brutality

inflicted upon him by the Indian Courts since

2010 to till date. Records have been placed on

record with all the three SLPs and Writ

petition filed before this Hon’ble Court. It is

also placed on record with the clarification

sought by the Registrar dated 07.09.2016 at

page no. 50 to 57 in Writ Criminal 136 of 2016.

xxv. That the case has reached up to this stage

after 12 years through RTI against Ld.

Principal Judge Deepa Sharma of Trial Court at

New Delhi for stopping the whole court

proceedings on 30.05.2011 and generating the

wrong order sheet alleging the petitioner for

requesting for adjournment of the court

proceedings while the date was fixed for WS

filing by the respondent and subsequent RTI

reply dated 30.08.2011; RTI against Hon'ble

Justice Ms Veena Birbal of Hon'ble High Court

of Delhi for adjourning the court proceeding

while the Legal Aid Advocate Jai Bansal was

absent without the intimation to the petitioner

and the petitioner in person was present and

subsequent RTI reply dated 27.08.2012; CIC

decision order dated 25.09.2014 under the title

Om Prakash Poddar Vs Department of Legal

Affairs against Delhi State Legal Services

Authority for not taking any action against

Legal Aid Advocates; Department of Justice

Government of India letter to NALSA dated

13.04.2015; NALSA letter to Supreme Court Legal

Service Committee dated 13.05.2015; NALSA

letter to Delhi High Court Legal Service

Committee dated 13.05.2015; NALSA letter to

Delhi State Legal Service Authority dated

13.05.2015 and RTI against Ld. Shri Chandra

Mohan Jha, CJM, Civil Court Begusarai Bihar of

Ld. CJM Divivsion District Court Begusarai

Bihar and subsequent RTI reply dated

27.08.2016.

xxvi. That no civilized & reasonable person would

tolerate and appreciate this kind of brutality

inflicted by the bad element of State Apparatus

ignoring the Rule of Law.

xxvii. That the State Apparatus of two

States are involved in criminal conspiracy

against petitioner no.01 and 02 to kill the

petitioner no.01 and 02 to usurp their property

in Bihar and the controller of the State

Apparatus, a central Government employee and a

Rtd. Justice of this Hon’ble Court reside at

New Delhi and all directions go from Delhi to

Bihar. All events have taken place in Bihar &

Delhi against the petitioner during 2004 to

2016 at the behest of direction from Delhi.

Hence, approaching to Hon’ble Patna High Court

is meaningless and inefficacious. Records have

been placed with all the three SLPs and two

Writs before this Hon’ble Court. Registry has

notified defects against the original draft of

the petitioner in the Writ (Civil) 90 of 2016

because the name of Rtd Justice of this Hon’ble

Court was mentioned. Hence, petitioner

redrafted it. However, it is evident from the

Letter-Petition dated 08.10.2016 to Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of India. Another Letter-Petition

dated 13.10.2016 to Hon’ble the Chief Justice

of India is annexed herein with this petition.

xxviii. That Mr. Praveen Kumar from Indian Defense

Account Service presently as C&MD on deputation

basis with Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd,

Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi has

encircled us in Bihar as well as in Delhi and

kept us captive in house arrest virtually. It

has been placed on record in Writ (Civil) 90 of

2016 before this Hon’ble Court.

xxix. That the bad element of State Apparatus on the

one hand has issued N.B.W process u/s 83 Cr.Pc.

and kept it secret since 2011 to usurp our

property in Bihar and on the other hand Mr.

Praveen Kumar has kept us house arrest in Delhi

to kill us silently.

xxx. How State Apparatus and Mafia are involved in

criminal conspiracy against a vulnerable common

man and senior citizen oxygen dependent

voiceless widow OBC woman in two states viz.

Delhi & Bihar since 2004 has been apprised

before this Hon’ble Court from time to time

through SLP(C) no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no.

9483/2013, SLP(C) no. 19073/2013, Writ (C) 90

of 2016 and Writ Petition (Criminal) 136 of

2016?

xxxi. Since 2004 to 2009, criminal conspiracy through

local leaders and Mafia and since 2010 to till

date, through Indian Courts.

xxxii. Everything has finished. 12 years long criminal

conspiracy has taken away the life of my above

the knee amputee father untimely in 2007 and we

(me and my ailing mother) have been kept

captive and house arrest virtually.

xxxiii. That the criminal trespass has been committed

by Mr. Bihari Lal Bubna, an elected PRI leader

with the consent of S.P. of Katihar. House of

petitioner no.02 has been turned into public

Toilet with the posters which has been placed

on record with Writ (C) 90 of 2016 before this

Hon’ble Court through interlocutory

application. False police enquiry report has

been submitted by the S.P. Katihar to the Chief

Minister Secretariat denying the very fact of

the incident. However, the villagers have sent

us the snaps of public toilet through Watsup

which has been declined by the police enquiry

report.

xxxiv. That Peculiar fact of this matter is that the

Hon’ble Judges and Advocates have played a role

of respondents throughout the case from Trial

Court to High Court either in Delhi or in

Bihar. Actual party has not even filed a single

piece of paper before the Ld. Trial court at

New Delhi. However, actual party has appeared

once on 09.02.2011 and has filed Vakalatnama

before Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi.

xxxv. Had the Hon’ble Judges not played a role of

Respondent the matter would have been disposed

of on 30.05.2011 itself? It is evident from the

records of Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi,

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and SCR of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India. Bad elements of State

Apparatus have turned the settled matter into

complex matter intentionally for their own

vested interest and have contracted the matter

till date to finish the vulnerable petitioner

by way of trapping him into the courts without

harming themselves. Matter is ex parte and

Hon’ble Judges have played a role of

respondent.

xxxvi. That a Letter-Petition against Ld.

CJM Begusarai affecting the administration of

Justice dated 19.08.2016 vide diary no. 35529

has been rejected by this Hon’ble Court as it

did not cover under the guideline of PIL;

although the matter in the larger public

interest. The bugs would have been stopped and

killed; had this Hon’ble court would have taken

an appropriate action against the Letter-

Petition dated 19.08.2016.

A True Copy of Letter-Petition dated

19.08.2016 to Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India is annexed herewith

and marked as Annexure P-1 (Page

from 68 to 77)

xxxvii. That Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Public

Information Officer District Court Begusarai

Bihar has furnished false and frivolous RTI

reply on 27.08.2016.

A True Copy of false RTI reply by Ld.

CJM Begusarai dated 27.08.2016 to the

petitioner is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P-2 (Page from 78

to 84)

xxxviii. That the RTI reply of Ld. Chief Judicial

Magistrate Cum Public Information Officer

District Court Begusarai Bihar under QUESTION

NO.07 in Case No. 9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic

violence Act, "the application for cancellation

of NBW was never pressed before court, so no

order was passed upon it and neither the

petitioner nor his advocate had appeared before

the court" has been falsified by the record of

certified copy of Order dated 4.4.2011 issued

by the same Begusarai Court and the same has

been placed on record at Ld. Trail Court at New

Delhi in Case No. HMA-700 of 2010 and on the

ground of which Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has

pronounced the Judgement in Case No. MAT. APPL.

7 of 2012 on 23.07.2013 in favor of the

petitioner.

xxxix. That aggrieved by the false RTI

reply dated 27.08.2016 furnished by the Ld. CJM

Begusarai, petitioner has filed Writ Petition

Criminal 136 of 2016 on 30.08.2016 before this

Hon’ble Court for quashing of frivolous

criminal proceedings.

xl. Application dated 03.10.2016

before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for

mentioning of fresh matter for urgent listing

earlier than the scheduled date and urgent

relief is sought against Writ Petition Criminal

136 of 2016 has been sent through R&I

department of this Hon’ble Court after a huge

hue and cry as initially R&I refused to take

this Dak and subsequently being filed through

filing counter of Party in Person as well on

the same date.

A True Copy of application before the

Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for

mentioning of fresh matter urgently

dated 03.10.2016 by the petitioner is

annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure P-3 (Page from 85 to 95)

xli. That the petitioner applied for

urgent mentioning of the matter Writ

Criminal 136 of 2016 before Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of India through Mentioning

officer of this Hon’ble Court on 06.10.2016

without routing through the registry

through caveat clearance counter on the

following grounds viz. Senior Citizen

woman, harassment of OBC woman, prevention

of corruption, issuance of N.B.W dated

08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. without

the knowledge of petitioner and after the

settlement of the same matter by the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013

in MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012, apprehension of

demolition of property, interlinkages of

matter with old matter of this Hon’ble

Court and short matter, as has been laid

down in the handbook of this Hon’ble Court.

A True Copy of filing index of

Urgent Mentioning application


India’s Court through Mentioning

Officer dated 06.10.2016 by the

petitioner through Caveat clearance

Counter without receipt is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure P-4

(Page from 96 to 96)

xlii. That the Mentioning officer of

this Hon’ble Court has intentionally listed

my urgent mentioning application before

Court No.06 instead of Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India’s Court in the evening of

06.10.2016 despite of my strong protest to

directly allow me for mentioning before

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India as per

the provisions laid down in the handbook of

this Hon’ble Court.

xliii. Hence, the petitioner is aggrieved by

the intentional act of Mentioning officer for

listing the matter before the Court No.06 as

the same Hon’ble bench of this Court No.06 has

dismissed the Writ (C) 90 of 2016, although the

petitioner had apprised the Hon’ble Court

through interlocutory applications that 498A

has been instituted in the state of Bihar even

after the settlement of the same matter by the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

xliv. That the petitioner submitted before

the Hon’ble bench of Court no.06 that the

mentioning officer has cheated the petitioner

and intentionally listed the matter for

mentioning before this court. Petitioner has

humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court No.06

to grant him liberty to mention the matter

before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India’s

Court. Hence, order dated 07.10.2016 has been

passed by the Hon’ble Court No. 06 in Writ

(Crl.) 136 of 2016.

A True Copy of order dated


Court is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P-5 (Page from

97 to 97)

xlv. That aggrieved by the intentional act

of Mentioning officer, the petitioner no.02 has

submitted Letter-Petition dated 08.10.2016 and

13.10.2016 before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India through email; speed post; and by hand

respectively against rampant atrocities on

Senior Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,

OBC, voiceless, rural woman in two states viz.

Bihar as well as in Delhi since 12 years.



Chief Justice of India is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure P-6

(Page from 98 to 115)

xlvi. After an Order dated 07.10.2016

passed by this Hon’ble Court and upon the

request made by the petitioner, petitioner

being called on 17.10.2016 by the mentioning

officer for fresh application for urgent

mentioning before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India, however petitioner being harassed whole

day from PRO to mentioning officer and directly

refused by the mentioning officer as his role

is over now.

xlvii. Upon direct refusal by mentioning

officer to allow the petitioner to mention the

matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India as per the provisions laid down in the

handbook of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and

the schedule listing of the matter fixed by the

registry on 21.10.2016; the petitioner left

with no option and filed an application for

listing this matter before the constitution

bench of seven Judges vide diary no. 77878

dated 18.10.2016.

A True Copy of application for

constitution bench along with

Affidavit dated 18.10.2016 vide

diary no. 77878 filed against Writ

Petition (Criminal) 136 of 2016 is


Annexure P-7 (Page from 116 to

127)

xlviii. Office report dated 20.10.2016 against Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 has neither been

supplied nor been uploaded at the website of

this Hon’ble Court by the Registrar, Section X.

Petitioner has applied for the certified copy

of the same on 28.10.2016 with an application

registration no. A1-32350/2016 vide diary no.

PC-732 and received the certified copy of

Office-Report on 08.11.2016. Office-Report

dated 20.10.2016 does not contain the

application dated 03.10.2016 before Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of India for mentioning of fresh

matter urgent listing earlier than the

scheduled date and urgent relief is sought

against Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016. The

record has not been placed on record and has

been intentionally erased from the office

report. Office-Report dated 20.10.2016 further

wrongly records the date of filing of

application for listing the writ petition

before a constitution bench on 18th January

2016 while the petitioner has filed the same on

18th October 2016. Moreover, it is circulated

‘unregistered’. Criminal Misc petition no. has

not been allotted against application dated

18.10.2016 intentionally by the Registrar.

A True Copy of certified copy of

office report dated 20.10.2016

by the Registrar, Section X is


Annexure P-8 (Page from 128 to

129)

xlix. That this Hon’ble Court has

dismissed the Writ petition with liberty on

21.10.2016 and directed the petitioner to

approach Patna High Court.

A True Copy of final Order dated


Court in Writ Petition (Criminal)

136 of 2016 is annexed herewith

and marked as Annexure P-9 (Page

from 130 to 130)

l. That petitioner no.01 and 02

cannot remain live or sustain their life in any

state of India if the Hon’ble Apex Court does

not invoke its inherent power under Article 32

of the Constitution of India to enforce

guaranteed fundamental rights of the petitioner

under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

2. ERRORS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF

RECORD; FACTUAL ERRORS

a. That the Order dated 21.10.2016 of

this Hon’ble Court violates the Part IV of

ORDER XXXV of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 which

was framed in exercise of the powers conferred

by Article 145 of the Constitution. Provision

of the Part IV of Order XXXV of Supreme Court

Rules, 1966 says, “1.(1) Every petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution shall be in

writing and shall be heard by a Division Court

of not less than five Judges provided that a

petition which does not raise a substantial

question of Law as to the interpretation of the

Constitution may be heard and decided by a

Division Court of less than five Judges, and,

during vacation, by the vacation Judge sitting

singly. (2) All interlocutory and miscellaneous

applications connected with a petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution, may be heard

and decided by a Division Court of less than

five Judges, and, during vacation, by the

vacation Judge sitting singly, notwithstanding

that in the petition a substantial question of

Law as to the interpretation of Constitution is

raised.”

b. That the Writ Petition which has

been dismissed by the Order, against which

Review Petition is hereby moved, did raise

‘substantial question of law as to the

interpretation of the Constitution and this

Hon’ble Court was not required to decide any

‘interlocutory and miscellaneous application’

‘connected with the petition’. The humble

Petitioner had submitted this in his Writ

Petition, pleadings/arguments and through

written submission followed by interlocutory

application for constitution bench on

18.10.2016 vide diary no. 77878.

c. That During the course of hearing

on 21.10.2016, the petitioner not being heard

properly rather directed to engage Advocate

although the Petitioner has clarified the

strong reason for not engaging any Advocate

against this matter in writing in the Writ

petition as well as with the Registrar during

the interaction interview dated 03.10.2016 that

“Hon’ble Judges and Advocates have played a

role of Respondent throughout the case from

Trial Court to High Court”.

d. For that there is sufficient

reason to review the Order of this Hon’ble

Court as it contains material and apparent

errors in passing directions to the petitioner

to approach Patna High Court.

e. For that the Order of this Hon’ble

Court incorrectly directs the petitioner to

approach Patna High Court, which has resulted

in gross miscarriage of justice.

3. FAILURE TO CONSIDER CONTENTIONS OF

PETITIONER MADE WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 21 OF THE

CONSTITUTION; RIGHT OF DIGNITY, LIBERTY AND

AUTONOMY

a) For that Article 21 of the

Constitution protects an individual’s right

to autonomy, liberty, basing this submission

on the jurisprudence of this Hon’ble Court.

The petitioner’s written submissions contain

these averments in pages 15 to 17(para xxvii

to xxix); page 27, (para L, M, N); Page 31,

(para W, X); page 32, (para Y) and page 34

(para BB) and Pages 50 to 57 where

clarification has been sought by the

registrar dated 07.09.2016.

4. ON THE LEGALITY OF THIS ORDER OF D

ISMISSAL: ARTICLE 145 (1).

That the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 was framed in

exercise of the powers conferred by Article 145 of

the Constitution. Part IV, ORDER XXXV of the said

Rules runs as under:

“1.(1) Every petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution shall be in writing and shall be heard

by a Division Court of not less than five Judges

provided that a petition which does not raise a

substantial question of Law as to the

interpretation of the Constitution may be heard and

decided by a Division Court of less than five

Judges, and, during vacation, by the vacation Judge

sitting singly.

(2) All interlocutory and miscellaneous

applications connected with a petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution, may be heard and

decided by a Division Court of less than five

Judges, and, during vacation, by the vacation Judge

sitting singly, notwithstanding that in the

petition a substantial question of Law as to the

interpretation of Constitution is raised.”

The effect of the aforesaid Order is:

(a) That Writ petition involves

questions pertaining to the interpretation

of the Constitution, the Writ Petition must

be heard by a bench of not less than five

Judges;

(b) That if Writ Petition ‘does not

raise a substantial question of Law as to

the interpretation of the Constitution’ it

‘may be heard and decided by a Division

Bench of the Court of less than five

Judges, and, during vacation, by the

vacation Judge sitting singly’;

(c) That all ‘interlocutory and

miscellaneous applications’ connected with

a petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution, may be heard and decided by a

Division Court of less than five

Judges,……’; and

(d) That all that can be decided in

matters mentioned at interlocutory and

miscellaneous application’, leaving the

actual Writ Petition intact before the

Court to be disposed of as per the law and

the Constitution.

That the Writ Petition which has been dismissed

by the Order, against which Review Petition is

hereby moved, did raise ‘substantial question of

law as to the interpretation of the Constitution

and this Hon’ble Court was not required to decide

any ‘interlocutory and miscellaneous application’

‘connected with the petition’.

5. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF

THE CONSTITUTION WERE INVOLVED

I. Article 32 confers a guaranteed

fundamental remedy but Article 226 confers no

such guaranteed rights. This state of affairs

makes Article 32 a dominant and specific

provision whereas Article 136 or Article 226

are, in the context of the enforcement of the

fundamental rights, clearly general and

additional.

II. Dr. Ambedkar described Article 32

of the Constitution as “the very soul and the

very heart of the Constitution”. Article 136, a

discretionary remedy, cannot be elevated to

become the very soul of the Constitution.

III. In a given case where certain

Fundamental Rights are violated or non-

protected, a remedy under Article 32 must be

granted as a matter of course;

IV. Remedy under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India is a matter of course

whenever on account of state action a

Fundamental Right granted as per provisions of

the Part III of the Constitution are breached,

or ignored.

V. That, as such, the Remedy under

Article 32 of the Constitution is ex propio

Vigore available to protect a citizen’s

Fundamental Right which he believes to have

been breached or non-protected by a judicial

order of the Superior Judiciary;

VI. That the order stood in breach of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to say

in other words, this Right was not protected by

this Hon’ble Court.

VII. As a point of our Constitutional

law that if there is breach or non-protection

by any organ of the state, which includes

Judiciary also, remedy under Article 32 is to

be granted as a matter of course; and

VIII. To examine the petitioner’s

contentions to appreciate if the Case presented

deserves the grant of such a Remedy on its

merits.

6. QUETION(S) OF LAW

That the main questions of Law to be decided in

this petition are:-

a) Whether after the settlement of the matter

by one High Court; one has to approach

another High Court for the same cause of

action and for the same relief wherein the

respondent has already appeared into the

matter and contested the matter indirectly?

b) Whether the matter involves two states

jurisdictions for the same cause of action;

Hon’ble Apex Court must not invoke its

inherent power under Article 32 to enforce

and guarantee the fundamental rights of the

citizen under Article 21?

c) Whether the Writ petition involves questions

pertaining to the interpretation of the

Constitution; the Writ Petition is liable to

be dismissed by a bench of less than five

Judges?

d) Whether the petitioner approached to this

Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 32 against

rampant atrocities by the state apparatus in

two states and for enforcement of his

fundamental rights under Article 21 to be

subjected to violation of principle of

Natural Justice by this Hon’ble Court?

e) Whether dismissing the Writ petition with

liberty and directing the petitioner to

approach to Patna High Court by the two

Judges Bench of this Hon’ble Court; does not

violate the provisions of Supreme Court

Rules, 1966 which was framed in exercise of

the powers conferred by Article 145 of the

Constitution under the Part IV of ORDER

XXXV? And whether Article 226 confers

guaranteed fundamental rights to the

petitioner for enforcement of Article 21?

7. GROUNDS

That being aggrieved by order dated

21.10.2016, the petitioner is challenging

the same on the following amongst other

grounds: -

A. For that it would be equitable and

in the interest of justice that the

Order dated 21.10.2016, under review in

this petition, is recalled and the case

is decided on merits otherwise grave

prejudice shall be caused to the review

petitioner herein.

B. For that the order violates the

provisions of Supreme Court Rules, 1966

which was framed in exercise of the

powers conferred by Article 145 of the

Constitution under ORDER XXXV.

C. For that the order fails to take

into account the face of records that Writ

petition involves questions pertaining to

the interpretation of the Constitution, the

Writ Petition is not liable to be dismissed

by a bench of less than five Judges?

D. For that the order fails to take

into account the face of records that it

has severely affected the administration of

Justice delivered by the Hon’ble High Court

of Delhi; way back in 2013 in favor of

petitioner.

E. For that the order fails to take

into account the face of records that there

is a sheer violation of Principle of

Natural Justice.

F. For that the order fails to take

into account voluminous evidence adduced

and substantive contentions urged by the

petitioner through SLP(C) no. 9854/2012,

SLP(C) no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no.

19073/2013, Writ (C) 90 of 2016 and Writ

(Crl.) 136 of 2016 before this Hon’ble

Court.

G. That the final order of this

Hon’ble Court suffers from errors

apparent on the face of record,

resulting in grave miscarriage of

Justice.

H. Public Confidence in

administration of justice will be shaken

by reason of the association or

closeness of judge with the subject

matter of dispute; establish wrong

precedent of procedural Judicial

System, encourage malfunctioning of

the State Apparatus; weaken the

basic fabric of the institutions;

ignore constitutional priority; if

the order is permitted to stand

I. For that review of this Order is

‘necessary for the sake of justice’.

J. For that review of this Order is

necessary to protect the interest of the

neglected Senior Citizen in the family.

K. For that the order fails to take

into account the face of records that if

Order is not being reviewed in

constructive manner than common man will

be discouraged and demotivated to save

the life of an old age person and aged

person will be neglected in the every

household. No one would try to save the

life of an aged person at the cost of

his or her life in the fast moving

material world.

L. For that review of this Order is

necessary to preserve the dignity of our

holy Constitution as well as the dignity

of our Hon’ble Apex Court.

M. For that review of this Order is

necessary otherwise it will pass a wrong

message to the society that Hon’ble Apex

Court is in support of the

malfunctioning of State Apparatus and

against the protection of Fundamental

Rights of a common citizen.

N. For that the order fails to take

into account the face of records that

there is a sheer violation of Human

Rights throughout the case from Ld.

Trial Court to the Hon’ble Apex Court.

O. For that review of this Order is

necessary otherwise it will pass wrong

message to the petitioner that all

events have taken place against him

(since 2010 to till date, either in

Bihar or in Delhi) so far at the behest

of Hon’ble Apex Court.

P. For that review of this Order is

necessary otherwise individual priority

will overshadow the Constitutional

priority.

Q. For that review of this Order is

necessary otherwise it will encourage

the morale of bad elements of state

Apparatus and weaken the basic fabric of

the institutions.

R. For that review of this Order is


the morale of those who consider court

as their personal property.

S. That the matter is not an

individual as it is in the interest of

larger Public. Thus, power elite can

infringe the right to life or personal

liberty of a vulnerable common man or

woman and take them on hostage to make

them a bonded labour; can infringe the

right to live with dignity.

T. That the matter is a

constitutional as well. It is the

concern of all citizens. Thus, after

winning from one High Court one cannot

go to another High Court for the same

cause of action and for the same relief.

U. That the matter is also concern in

the interest of all Senior Citizen

Women.

V. For that review of this Order is

necessary otherwise it will weaken the

institution of marriage and encourage

the morale of those who are indulged in

the commercialization of marriage for

the lust of property and financial

gains.

W. For that review of this Order is


the rampant misuse of 498A in the

country.

X. For that review of this Order is

necessary otherwise it will not act as a

deterrent and make the women responsible

and accountable towards the Senior

Citizen disabled and ailing in-laws.

Y. For that review of this Order is

necessary to give right direction to the

feminist movement in India.

Z. For that review of this Order is

necessary to redefine the role of Women

Protection Officers in India down the

line.

AA. For that review of this Order is

necessary to fix responsibility,

accountability and stern punitive action

against Women Protection Officer so that

the genuine victims get the benefit out

of it.

BB. For that review of this Order is

necessary to stop the rampant misuse and

abuse of power by the Women Protection

Officers for their own vested interest

defeating the very purpose of the

institutional arrangements made under

the domestic violence Act 2005 for women

safety and empowerment those genuinely

victimized in the society.

CC. For that review of this Order is

necessary to give guidelines to the

State Governments for appointment of the

qualitative & right candidates as Women

Protection Officers in the State.

DD. For that review of this Order is

necessary to impart essential training

and build capacity of the Women

Protection Officers to develop a sense

of discrimination between genuine and

frivolous domestic violence to exercise

their power carefully and diligently to

ascertain the gravity of the affected

Women.

EE. For that review of this Order is

necessary to break the hegemony of bad

elements of state Apparatus who want to

govern the mind and body of a common man

or woman.

FF. For that the order fails to take

into account the face of records that

petitioner’s life is at stake and this

order will kill the petitioner no.01 and

02 slowly and silently.

8. NEW AND IMPORTANT EVIDENCE AS GROUND

(i) For that this Order ought to be

reviewed as it fails to take into account new

and important evidence as ground.

(ii) That the petitioner has been

stopped and offended by the Registry,

Mentioning Officer and PRO by this Hon’ble

Court to mention the matter before Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of India on the ground of

provisions laid down in the handbook of this

Hon’ble Court. It is evident from an

application before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India for mentioning of fresh matter urgently

dated 3.10.2016 through R&I and Registry both

and subsequent suppression of the record by the

Registrar Section X as evident from certified

copy of Office-Report dated 20.10.2016 annexed

herein as annexure P-8; an application for

urgent mentioning of the matter before

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India through

Mentioning officer of this Hon’ble Court

dated 06.10.2016 without routing through

the registry as per the provisions laid

down in the handbook of this Hon’ble Court

and subsequent listing of matter before

Court no.06 instead of Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India’s Court on 07.10.2016

despite of strong protest by the

petitioner; order dated 07.10.2016 passed

by this Hon’ble Court that though the

matter has been placed before the court as

mentioning item, the petitioner submitted

that he would like to mention the matter

before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India;

Letter-Petition dated 08.10.2016 against

mentioning officer of this Hon’ble Court

through R&I; Letter-Petition dated

13.10.2016 against rampant atrocities on

Senior Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,

OBC, voiceless, rural woman through R&I; after

an order dated 07.10.2016 passed by this

Hon’ble Court and upon request by the

petitioner, petitioner being called on

17.10.2016 for fresh mentioning of the matter

urgently before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India by the mentioning officer and being

harassed whole day from PRO to mentioning

officer and directly being refused by the

mentioning officer at the end of the day that

his role is over now; consequently, an

application was moved for listing this matter

before the constitution bench of seven Judges

vide diary no. 77878 dated 18.10.2016; office

report dated 20.10.2016 neither being uploaded

at the website in public domain nor being

supplied to the petitioner even after several

reminders orally and through email dated

27.10.2016 to the Registrar, Section X;

application for the certified copy of the same

was made on 28.10.2016 with an application

registration no. A1-32350/2016 vide diary no.

PC-732 and received the certified copy of same

on 08.11.2016 annexed herein as Annexure P-8;

all evidences have been placed on record

with this Criminal Review Petition and are

annexed herein as Annexures P-3 to P-4 and P-

6 to P-8.

(iii) That the petitioner who approached

this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India for enforcement of his

guaranteed Fundamental Right being subjected to

gross violation of Human Rights; and gross

violation of provisions, procedure and practice

of this Hon’ble Court as laid down in the

handbook of this Hon’ble Court by the Quasi-

Judicial Officer of this Hon’ble Court.

(iv) That a well-designed criminal

conspiracy being commissioned and strategy

being adopted against the petitioner by the

Quasi-Judicial Officer of this Hon’ble Court to

spoil the valid ground of the case and make it

liable to be dismissal with liberty by this

Hon’ble Court and to close the door of the

Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 32 for

enforcement of guaranteed fundamental right of

the petitioner under Article 21.

9. QUANTUM OF AFFECTED PERSON AS GROUND FOR

UPHOLDING CONSTITUTIONALITY

a. For that this Hon’ble Court has

held in the case of RK Dalmia vs Justice SR

Tendolkar [AIR 1958 SC 538](noted by this

Hon’ble Court in the impugned judgment) that:

“….a law may be constitutional even though

it relates to a single individual if, on

account of some special circumstances or

reasons applicable to him and not

applicable to others, that single

individual may be treated as a class by

himself”

b. The aforementioned principle has

inter alia been followed by a bench of this

Hon’ble Court in Ashok Thakur vs Union of India

[2008)6 SCC 1], wherein the court held that

even when it notices that “…..even one

individual’s freedom has been curtailed, this

court is duty-bound to entertain his or her

claim.” However, the order dated 21.10.2016 of

this Hon’ble Court has failed to apply this

principle to the Petitioner no.01 & 02 affected

by the malfunctioning of the state apparatus

down the line.

10. That the justice delivery system

of the country is such that in spite of

noticing a breach of public interest with a

corresponding social ramification, court

maintains delightful silence. However, this

Hon’ble Court has never maintained a

delightful silence with a blind eye and deaf

ear to the cry of a society in general or even

that of a litigant on the ground of finality

of an Order as passed by this Hon’ble Court.

11. That the Order dated 21.10.2016 of

this Hon’ble Court implies a closed door of

this Hon’ble Court for the petitioner and

depicts that the same stands in violation of

natural justice adversely and seriously

affecting the rights of the petitioner or the

same depicts manifest injustice rendering the

order a mockery of justice which causes

insurmountable difficulty and immense public

injury. Hence, the principle of concept of

justice, ex debito justitiae may play a

pivotal role in reviewing the order of the

present review petition.

12. The present review petition is

being filed to avoid grave miscarriage of

justice to millions of Senior Citizen Women in-

Laws who have been victimized and aggrieved by

the order dated 21.10.2016 of this Hon’ble

Court and have been put on risk of rampant

atrocities by the malfunctioning of State

Apparatus after the closure of the matter by

the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, upon rampant

misuse of 498A across India.

13. That the applicant has a good

prima facie case of review against the Order

dated 21.10.2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court

in Writ Criminal 136 of 2016.

14. That it is submitted that the

present petition is being filed bona fide and

in the interest of justice.

15. That the petitioner has filed

first review petition before this Hon’ble Court

and not filed any other review petition in this

matter in any other court.

16. Hence, it is prayed that the

present Review Petition be allowed.

-:PRAYER:-

In the above premises, it is prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

(i) To pass an order allowing the

present review petition seeking

review of the Order dated 21.10.2016


Criminal 136 of 2016 for review and

reconsideration of final order dated

21.10.2016 of this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) To pass such other orders and

further orders as may be deemed

necessary on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER

SHALL AS INDUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

DRAWN & FILED BY:


OM PRAKASH

NEW DELHI:

FILED ON :09.11.2016.

Settled by: Petitioner




IN

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO.136 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH & ANR ……….PETITIONER

VERSUS


AFFIDAVIT

I, Om Prakash S/o Late Deep Narayan Poddar, aged 42

years, R/o RZF/893, Netaji Subash Marg, Raj Nagar

Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi - 77, do hereby

solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:-

1. That I am the Petitioner in the above matter

and well conversant with the facts of the case

as such competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the contents of the accompanying Criminal

Review Petition [para 1 to 16.], [Page 01 to

54] and Synopsis and List of Dates (Page B to

H’], and I, As. having understood the contents

thereof I say that the facts state therein are

correct which are based on the official record.

3. That the Criminal Review Petition Paper Book

contains total 130 pages.’

4. That the annexures are true copies of their

respective originals.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify that

the facts stated in the above affidavit are true to

my knowledge and belief. No part of the same is

false and nothing material has been concealed

therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this the 9th day of

November, 2016.

DEPONENT




IN


(Decided on 21.10.2016)

[Arising out of the final Order dated 21.10.2016

passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition

(Criminal) No. 136 of 2016 therein.]

IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH & ANR ……….PETITIONER

VERSUS


BETWEEN

3. Om Prakash ………PETITIONER NO.01

S/O Late Sh Deep Narayan Poddar

R/O RZF-893, Netaji Sbhash Marg

Raj Nagar Part-2,

Palam Colony

New Delhi-110077

4. Widow Asha Devi ……PETITIONER NO.02

W/o Late Sh. Deep Narayan Poddar

R/O ASHA DEEP NIWAS

Vill-Kantiya Panchayat,

Shukkar Haat Sonaili,

In front of Durga Mandir

P.S. Kadwa, Distt-Katihar

Bihar-855114

VERSUES

5. State of Bihar ….RESPONDENT No.01

Through Chief Secretary,

Old Secretariat, Patna-800015

6. The Hon’ble Patna ….RESPONDENT No.02

High Court,

Through

Hon’ble Registrar General,

Patna High Court

Patna-800028

7. Ld. CJM Court ….RESPONDENT No.03

Through Ld. CJM

Begusarai, Bihar

Civil Court, Ld. CJM Division

at Begusarai, Bihar

8. The Secretary ….RESPONDENT No.04

Cum-Legal Remembrancer

Law Department, Government of Bihar

Main Secretariat Patna-800015

PETITIONER-IN-PERSON’S CERTIFICATE

1. That First time, petitioner in person

is filing the present Review Petition

Criminal on the ground of an error apparent

on the face of record under Article 137 of

the Constitution of India, 1950, as per the

rules made under Article 145 under the

Supreme Court Rules, 1966 against the final

Order dated 21.10.2016 passed by this

Hon’ble Court.

2. That having gone through the Order and

records mentioned hereinabove as also the

law laid down as per the rules made under

Article 145 by this Hon’ble Court under the

Supreme Court Rules, 1966, I Certify that:-

A. That the petitioner in person is

filing first Review Petition Criminal

before this Hon’ble Court by

circulation. However, the present

Review Petition seeks to review and

reconsider gross miscarriage of

Justice as is obvious from the

grounds set out in the present Review

Petition Criminal against the Order

dated 21.10.2016 whereby the Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 has

been dismissed with liberty

directing the petitioner to approach

Patna High Court.

B. That the Order dated 21.10.2016 of this

Hon’ble Court violates the Part IV of

ORDER XXXV of Supreme Court Rules, 1966

which was framed in exercise of the

powers conferred by Article 145 of the

Constitution. Provision of the Part IV

of Order XXXV of Supreme Court Rules,

1966 says, “1.(1) Every petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution shall be

in writing and shall be heard by a

Division Court of not less than five

Judges provided that a petition which

does not raise a substantial question of

Law as to the interpretation of the

Constitution may be heard and decided by

a Division Court of less than five

Judges, and, during vacation, by the

vacation Judge sitting singly. (2) All

interlocutory and miscellaneous

applications connected with a petition

under Article 32 of the Constitution,

may be heard and decided by a Division

Court of less than five Judges, and,

during vacation, by the vacation Judge

sitting singly, notwithstanding that in

the petition a substantial question of

Law as to the interpretation of

Constitution is raised.”

C. That it is averred in para no. 1 to

7 of the Review Petition Criminal

that ‘two States jurisdiction for the

same cause of action and

interpretation of the Constitution’

grounds have been taken in the Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 which

has been incorrectly dismissed by the

two Judges bench of this Hon’ble

Court. I certify that these averments

to be correct. I also find from the

contents of the Review Petition that

it fulfills the requirement of

Article 137 of the Constitution of

India, 1950 and the law laid down as

per the rules made under Article 145

by this Hon’ble Court under the

Supreme Court Rules, 1966.

D. That it is averred in para no. 8 of

the Review Petition Criminal that new

and important grounds have been taken

and corresponding evidences have been

placed on record. I certify that these

averments to be correct. I also find

from the contents of the Review

Petition that it fulfills the

requirement of review and reconsider

the final order dated 21.10.2016.

E. That from the perusal of Order and

the records I find that the petitioner

has not been heard properly and Order

being passed hastily which contains

material and apparent errors in passing

directions to the petitioner to approach

Patna High Court.

F. That the Petitioner had raised

‘substantial question of law as to the

interpretation of the Constitution and

this Hon’ble Court was not required to

decide any ‘interlocutory and

miscellaneous application’ ‘connected

with the petition’. The humble

Petitioner had submitted this in his

Writ Petition, pleadings/arguments and

through written submission followed by

interlocutory application for

constitution bench on 18.10.2016 vide

diary no. 77878.

G. That the Writ Petition which has

been dismissed by the Order, against

which Review Petition is hereby moved,

did raise ‘substantial question of law

as to the interpretation of the

Constitution and this Hon’ble Court was

not required to decide any

‘interlocutory and miscellaneous

application’ ‘connected with the

petition’.

H. That Article 21 of the

Constitution protects an individual’s

right to autonomy, liberty, basing this

submission on the jurisprudence of this

Hon’ble Court. The petitioner’s written

submissions contain these averments in

pages 15 to 17(para xxvii to xxix); page

27, (para L, M, N); Page 31, (para W,

X); page 32, (para Y) and page 34(para

BB) and pages 50 to 57 where

clarification has been sought by the

registrar dated 07.09.2016.

I. That petitioner no.01 and 02

cannot remain live or sustain their life

in any state of India if the Hon’ble

Apex Court does not invoke its inherent

power under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India to enforce

fundamental rights of the petitioner

under Article 21 of Constitution of

India.

J. That the direction mentioned in the body

of the order dated 21.10.2016 shows that

the clauses of prayers mentioned in the

Writ Criminal 136 of 2016 have not been

taken care of; and this Hon’ble Court

incorrectly directs the petitioner to

approach Patna High Court, which has

resulted in gross miscarriage of

justice.

K. Article 32 confers a guaranteed

fundamental remedy but Article 226

confers no such guaranteed rights. This

state of affairs makes Article 32 a

dominant and specific provision whereas

Article 136 or Article 226 are, in the

context of the enforcement of the

fundamental rights, clearly general and

additional.

L. That the order stood in breach of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India,

to say in other words, this Right was

not protected by this Hon’ble Court.

M. That as a point of our Constitutional

law that if there is breach or non-

protection by any organ of the state,

which includes Judiciary also, remedy

under Article 32 is to be granted as a

matter of course; and to examine the

petitioner’s contentions to appreciate

if the Case presented deserves the grant

of such a Remedy on its merits.

N. That there is sufficient reason to

review the Order of this Hon’ble Court

as it contains material and apparent

errors in passing directions to the

petitioner to approach Patna High Court.

O. That the Order of this Hon’ble Court

incorrectly directs the petitioner to

approach Patna High Court, which has

resulted in gross miscarriage of

justice.

P. That the petitioner has approached this

Hon’ble Court against the malfunctioning

of State Apparatus affecting the

administration of justice after the

settlement of the matter by the Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi and against the

gross violation of Human Rights

throughout the case by the bad elements

of state Apparatus in two States.

Q. That the petitioner who approached this

Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India for enforcement of

his guaranteed Fundamental Right being

subjected to gross violation of Human

Rights; and gross violation of

provisions, procedure and practice of

this Hon’ble Court as laid down in the

handbook of this Hon’ble Court by the

Quasi-Judicial Officer of this Hon’ble

Court. The evidences have been placed on

record with this Review petition and are

annexed herein as Annexure P-3 to P-4

and Annexure P-6 to P-8.

R. That in the above backdrop, a gross

miscarriage of justice including the

violation of principle of natural

justice has taken place in this case.

S. That these facts constitute sufficient

reasons to entertain this petition

seeking review and reconsideration of

Order dated 21.10.2016 which has arisen

out of dismissing Writ Petition

(Criminal) 136 of 2016 passed by this

Hon’ble Court.

CERTIFIED ACCORDINGLY

DRAWN & FILED BY:


OM PRAKASH

NEW DELHI:

FILED ON :09.11.2016.

Documents

Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Supreme Court of India filed on 09.11.2016