To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,
Supreme Court, New Delhi
After all for whom is the Judiciary?
Questions arising on the role of Supreme Court in light of
The orders passed by the Bench of Hon’ble Justice C.K. Prasad dated 12.07.2013, dated 27.08.2013, dated 23.09.2013 and dated 03.12.2013
On IA no. 17/12 to IA No. 19/13 in writ petition No. 174/1991
The orders continuously passed on 12.07.2013, 27.08.2013, 23.09.2013 and 03.12.2013 by the Supreme Court bench presided by Hon’ble Justice Chandramouli Kumar Prasad of Hon’ble Supreme Court on I.A. No. 17/12 and I.A. No. 19/13 under writ petition no. 174/91 disposed off by the Supreme Court on 08.07.1996 and 01.05.1997, are raising questions not only about constitutional provisions, not only about human rights, not only about percepts of natural justice but on the very role of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ?
Through the above decisions, without hearing the employees, without looking into basic points in IA No. 17/12 and I.A. NO. 19/13, only on the interim application filed under I.A. NO. 17/12, why Hon’ble Justice C.K. Prasad basing on the false affidavit of a fraud capitalist, is stressing on sale of crores of public property by the said capitalist?
Question is what is the basic point of the whole issue. Basic point is:
- The rehabilitation scheme of Rs. 504 crores for Ashok Paper Mills, Rameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga approved and directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 08 July 1996 and 01.05.1997 in writ petition no. 174/1991 was to be implemented within 36 months. Why has this scheme not been implemented by Nouveau Capital & Finance Ltd. in last sixteen years despite it taking over the said Mill on 18th August 1997.
- Basic point is : When the said rehabilitation scheme directed by the Supreme Court was not implemented in 36 months, why this Mill was not taken back from them in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court.
- Basic point is : After the vigilance enquiry was ordered by Bihar Govt. on 04.11.2003, employer fleeing after declaring a lockout which had been held illegal by the Labour Court and this was upheld by Patna High Court, on what basis officials of Industry Department of Central and Bihar Govt. handed over Ashok Paper Mill to NCFL owner Dharam Godha again on the basis of a false affidavit?
- Basic point is : When Nouveau Capital & Finance Ltd. has been a declared Dormant since 2009 and when Reserve Bank of India had cancelled registration of the company on 28th July 2010 and declared it a vanished company, then the affidavit filed by Dharam Godha in the capacity of the Director of Nouveau Capital & Finance Ltd. before the Bihar Govt. and Central Govt. on 31.05.2011 and affidavit before the Supreme Court in December 2012 in I.A. No. 17 is false or not? When N.C.F.L. itself is dormant and vanished then how is he its Director?
- And the Basic point is : All this forgery and fraud is done by Dharam Godha in the name of Nouveau Capital & Finance Ltd. to grab four hundred acres of land and over two hundred crores of public property free, in this whether officials of Bihar Govt. and Central Govt. are involved or not?
But it is surprising that instead of paying attention to these five basic points, instead of paying attention to the documents and factual evidence relating to these basic points and instead of listening to the arguments of workers’ union in I.A. No. 19/13. Hon’ble Justice C.K. Prasad of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is bent on giving orders of sale of machines and plants of Ashok Paper Mills to this fraud, owner of the above company Dharam Godha. And in this connection, has been postponing the hearing on I.A. No. 19/13 filed by the petitioner Union- Ashok Paper Kamgar Union, for about a year.
Question is whether it is in accordance with judicial process and system to pass one sided order ignoring the basic points without hearing the whole matter and only on partial and incorrect aspect basing on false affidavit? Whether such a judicial process fulfills the percepts of natural justice?
Article 142 (1) of the Indian Constitution explicitly declares:
“The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass decree or make such order as is necessary for doing Complete Justice in any cause of matter pending before it.”
It is obvious that the constitutional provisions empowering the Hon’ble Supreme Court to pass orders in the pending cases are motivated by the need to do “complete justice”, not by incomplete processes based on one sided and partial illogics on partial aspect.
In these orders to allow sale of machines and parts of plants in the name of scrap for one and a half to two crores by this fraud capitalist, the bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice C.K. Prasad ignored this fact that in the implementation of the rehabilitation scheme of the Supreme Court of 1997, which was of Rs. 504 crores then has now become worth about Rs. five thousand crores, what is the value of one and a half to two crores? And Hon’ble Court did not pay attention to this fact that how the management which is asking to sell the scrap for one and a half to two crores, will implement five thousand crore scheme while it could not raise 504 crores over the last sixteen years.
It is very necessary to clarify here that intent of raising this issue of Hon’ble Court’s partial and one sided action is not to show disrespect to the judiciary nor to criticize the Hon’ble Justice C.K. Prasad, nor to lessen the role and sanctity of judiciary, but the basic aim of raising this issue is to strengthen judicial administration, judicial conscience and judicial role of judiciary so that percept of complete justice and principle of natural justice is not violated, dignity of judiciary is not hurt and faith of the oppressed in the judiciary is retained.
According to Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (4)
“Freedom of expression as contemplated by Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution is available to the Press and to criticize a judgment fairly albeit fiercely is not crime but a necessary right.
A fair and reasonable criticism of a judgment which is a public document and which is a public act of a judge concerned with administration of Justice would not constitute contempt.” (Sham Lal, in re, AIR 1978 SC 489 (Paras 1, 26): (1978) 2 SCC 479, Hari Singh Nagra & Ors. vs. Kapil Sibal & Ors., 2011 Cri I.J. 102 (SC)
Therefore in such a dispute or matter wherein on one side are hundreds of oppressed workers denied wages for last sixteen years and who are murdered if they demand their wages, and on the other side a fraud capitalist and corrupt officials of Central and State Govts. associated with him, who mislead the Court by giving false affidavit, it is natural that questions arise if orders are repeatedly passed in favour of the fraud capitalist without hearing the workers’ side. After all, what is the purpose of repeatedly passing orders in his favour without checking the falsehoods in the false affidavit and without hearing the I.A. No. 19/13 of the workers?
Whether this is happening due to the Hon’ble Justice being from Bihar and his close proximity to Bihar’s corrupt bureaucrats or due to pressure of advocates related to Judges or under the influence of any other pressure? Whatever be the reason but it is obvious that such orders raise questions about judicial administration, judicial process and judicial conscience of the judiciary and signifies failure of the Court to differentiate between criminal and victims of crime. It is surprising that Hon’ble Justice C.K.Prasad is silent on the crime, is rewarding the criminal and is punishing the victims.
It is a matter of enquiry whether this deviation of Hon’ble Justice C.K. Prasad from the basic points is deliberate or unknowingly? Whether under any pressure or allurements or out of confusion?
It is surprising that through the letter written by Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court, D. No. 349/2013/x dated 22nd January 2013 addressed to Dr. N. K. Bhattacharya, Convener, Jan Hastakshep, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directs the workers to approach the Supreme Court in a proper way, and when the oppressed workers lodge the complaint before the Supreme Court through their Union’s I.A. No. 19/13, there is dilly dallying in the hearing and false affidavit of fraud capitalist is given precedence.
It is worth mentioning that on November 10, 2012, the said fraud capitalist Dharam Godha along with police fired upon workers for demanding arrears of their wages. Son of a worker was killed and several workers were injured. (Its FIR is registered under Case no. 165/2012 Ashok Paper Mills Police Station and in this anticipatory bail application of the accused Dharam Godha was dismissed by District and Sessions Judge and High Court has also not granted bail till now.)
This incident was investigated by a democratic rights organization from Delhi, Jan Hastakshep. And Jan Hastakshep submitted a representation before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on December 20, 2012. Assistant Registrar of the Supreme Court had written the above referred letter to Convener of Jan Hastakshep Dr. N. K. Bhattacharya.
The above two letters are being given below.
SUPREME COURT INDIA
NEW DELHI
D. No. 349/2013/x
22nd JANUARY, 2013
FROM :
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
TO,
DR. N. K. BHATTACHARYA,
CONVENER,
(RETIRED PROFESSOR DELHI UNIVERSITY)
50- D/AD BLOCK, SHALIMAR BAGH,
DELHI – 110088.
WRITE PETITION (C). NO. 174 OF 1991.
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
M/S ASHOK PAPER MILLS KAMGAR UNION ..PETITIONER
– VERSUS-
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..RESPONDENTS
SIR,
With reference to the letter dated 20th December, 2012 enclosing therewith Report addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in the Writ Petition above mentioned, sent by post, I am to inform you that no action can be taken on it as it is not in accordance with the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules (Extract enclosed).
Yours Faithfully,
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.
Encl; as above.
EXTRACT OF RULES 5 & 6 (1) OF ORDER X, S.C.R. 1996
RULES 5. All plaints petitions, applications and other documents shall be presented by the plaintiff, petitioner, applicant, appellant, defendant of respondent in person or by his duly authorised agent or an advocate on record duly appointed by him for the purpose.
Provided that a party, who had been adjudged to be a pauper for the purpose of the proceedings in the courts below, may present the document before the judicial authority of the place where the said part resides, and the said judicial authority, after attesting the document and endorsing thereon under his seal signature the date of presentation, shall transmit the same of the Court by registered Post, acknowledgement due at the expense of the party concerned. The date of presentation in this court of the said document shall be deemed to be the date endorsed thereon by the said judicial authority.
RULE 6. All plaints, petitions, appeal or other documents shall be presented at the filing counter and shall, wherever necessary, be accompanied by the documents required under the rules of the Court to be filed along with the said plaint, petition, or appeal.
JANHASTAKSHEP – Campaign Against Fascist Designs
20th December, 2012
The Hon’ble Chief Justice
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi 110 001
Subject :- Report of the fact finding team on the Police firing of the workers of the Ashok Paper Mill at Darbhanga, Bihar and violation of various Supreme Court Orders in connection to rehabilitation scheme finalized by the Supreme Court.
Respected Sir,
Jan Hartakshep is an organization devoted to the cause of Human Rights. After reading a report in the Newspaper that one worker was killed in police firing at Ashok Paper Mill, Darbhanga, Bihar, a fact-finding team on behalf of Jan Hastakshep visited Ashok Paper Mills. Workers had been resisting the continued thief of the mill assets by the Director, Mr. Dharm Godha in violations of the 38 point scheme finalized by the Supreme Court. Sushil Sah, son of late Baso Sah who was an employee of the Mill, was killed in police firing on 10.11.2012 and two other persons Jay kumar and Dukhi Yadav sustained serious bullet injuries. The team consisted of Dr. N.K. Bhattacharya (retired Professor, Delhi University), Dr. Ish Mishra (Professor, Delhi University) and Mr. Sachin Singh (Film maker).
On the 24 the November, the team along with two local journalists visited Ashok Paper Mills at a distance of about 15 kilometres, south east of the Darbhanga town. It is in an area of about 400 acres, amidst the farmlands and villages and on one side, about a kilometer and a half away, flows the Baghmati River, the source for water and for drainage of the waste from the factory.
The Investigation Team has done a detailed study of the issues of Police firing on workers and other violations of human rights of the workers of Ashok Paper Mills. The complete report of the investigation team is enclosed herewith for perusal and appropriate action on behalf of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the findings by the team with regard to the police firing on workers are as under :
“On the 10th of November, when Godha, present there with Police and his own guards, was trying to take the trucks out, villagers insisted on checking the trucks and at the behest of Mr. Godha the policemen and Godha’s armed guards fired without any warning in which Sushil Sah, son of late Baso Sah who was an employee of the Mill, was shot in the temple died and Jay Kumar (relative of an employee) and Dukhi Yadav survived the bullet injuries. According to the SSP, Garima Malik, on the evening of the 10 November 2012, she got a request from the APM Thana for more force, as some workers were agitated and gathered at the factory, so she sent an additional lathi party of 10 Policemen from the neighbouring police station to assist at the Thana. Later she again got another request for more force and she notified the neighbouring police stations to rush to the factory and she put some Policemen on standby at the police lines. According to her no Police Station had taken the responsibility of the firing. It is to be noted that the firing was not ordered by any competent authority nor by the magistrates deputed there. The Police fired on its own, “in self-defence”, according to the DGP Bihar as quoted in the newspapers.”
While talking to various workers and ex- MLA Mr. Umadhar Singh who was leading the campaign for rehabilitation scheme for Ashok Paper Mill, we came to know that various orders of this Hon’ble Court and the scheme finalized by this Court in consultation with Govt. of India and Govt. of Bihar has been violated with impunity. The relevant orders are also enclosed herewith for perusal and appropriate action by the Hon’ble Court in this regard.
Dr. N. K. Bhattacharya
Convener
(Retired Professor Delhi University)
50-D/AD Block, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi : 110 088.
Phone : 011- 27480073
Enclosed : Report of the fact finding team & various orders of this Hon’ble Court pertaining to Ashok Paper Mills rehabilitation scheme.
New Delhi
20th December, 2012
But Despite filing I.A. No. 19/13, oppressed workers are still waiting for their constitutional rights and justice, while murderer, fraud capitalist is getting illegal relief from the Court. Question is whether the Court is only for frauds and murderers or is also for those denied justice? After all, if the Supreme Court also does not hear the oppressed, then what alternative remains for those denied justice?
With regards,
Yours Faithfully,
(Umadhar Singh)
President, Ashok Paper Kamgar Union
Ex-MLA, Bihar Assembly
Dated : 06.01.2014
Nbsdelhi's Blog 