written arguments against writ 90 of 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IN

CIVIL WRIT PETITON NO.90 OF 2016

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH …………..PETITIONER

VERSUS

INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS Ltd ….RESPONDENT

& ORS

SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN MENTIONING OF ARGUMENTS ON

BEHALF OF PETITIONER FOR THE DATE OF HEARING ON

18.04.2016.

To

Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and

His Lordship's Companion Justices of

the Supreme Court of India. The

Humble petition of the Petitioner

abovenamed.

MOST RESPECFULLY SHOWETH:

That the petitioner is submitting the written

mentioning of arguments under the sub-headings of

brief summary; application for ex-parte ad-interim

stay; justification for NOTICE as to why notice or

summon is required against Respondent No.04 to 13;

prayers and observation of petitioner.

BRIEF SUMMARY:

1. Hon’ble sir, the matter is dismissal and

criminal conspiracy since 12 years through

misusing Government Machinery to break me down

in Bihar as well as in Delhi. Infringing my

fundamental right under Article 14, 15 and 21;

“right to life or personal liberty

specifically.”

2. Hon’ble sir, an extreme attempt was made to

turn my cooking gas stove permanently off by

way of stopping the delivery of LPG Cylinder.

It is being done after making Indane Delhi area

officer as a party in this Writ Petition. It is

pertinent to mention here that the website of

Indane was showing successful delivery of

Cylinder to the customer on 04.04.2016.

However, it was not delivered on the ground

after a lapse of 9 days from the date of

booking on 02.04.2016. After an online

complaint vide SRN No. 2609362 dated 10.04.2016

against non-delivery of cylinder with Indane by

me, proprietor of local gas agency intervened

into the matter and delivered the cylinder

without any proper receipt. However, Proprietor

of Local Gas Agency took my undertaking for

delivery of the cylinder on 11.04.2016 and

ensured me that I should make the payment for

this cylinder only after receiving the proper

receipt. How can I live if my cooking gas stove

being turned off permanently by these misused

Government machineries?

3. Hon’ble sir, these misused Government

Machineries are hitting me strategically to

break me down, infringing my right to life or

personal liberty.

4. Hon’ble sir, these misused Government

Machineries have hit my livelihood; hit my bank

account; hit my LPG agency to hack my Aadhar

card as it is linked with bank account; hit my

mother’s pension account to hack ATM pin; hit

my mother’s income/revenue from property

through Bank in the garb of GRC; hit my house

and turned it into public toilets through SP

Katihar and local Mukhiya and hit my voter

identity card through Booth Level Officer and

through officials of ERO by way of issuing

frivolous NOTICE u/s 22 of RP Act 1950 dated

16.03.2016 to delete my and my mother’s name

vide Sl No. 656 & Sl No. 653, Part No.23 of the

Electoral Roll for Bijwasan Assembly

Constituency from the voter list of NCT of

Delhi. Online complaint with Chief Electoral

officer of Delhi vide complaint no. 63935 &

6396 dated 23.03.2016; complaint no. 64104 &

64105 dated 31.03.2016 and complaint no. 64124

& 64125 dated 01.04.2016 has been registered.

Online complaints with Election Commission of

India vide complaint ID: DL/5/36/455191 dated

01.04.2016 and complaint ID: DL/5/36/455611

dated 04.04.2016 has also been registered.

Apart from this, an online complaint with

Public Grievances Monitoring System, Government

of NCT of Delhi vide complaint no. 201627443

dated 23.03.2016 and complaint no. 201631800

dated 06.04.2016 has also been lodged. It is

pertinent to note that an attempt to delete our

names from voter list of Delhi is being made to

trap us in the courts of Bihar u/s 498A/323.

5. Hon’ble sir, the sole motive of these misused

Government Machineries is to continue to keep

me in the trap of unusual court disputes by way

of instituting frivolous litigations against me

in different courts of India so that I could

not settle my life during my whole span of

lifetime.

6. Hon’ble sir, I am the worst trauma man since 12

years. I have been virtually detained at home

since 12 years by these misused Government

machineries.

7. Hon’ble sir, the root of this volcano is

Respondent No.04 and other 12 respondents are

the lavas of this volcano.

8. Hon’ble sir, this volcano remains dormant and

becomes active after a gap of 5 years.

9. Hon’ble sir, for the first time it erupted on

31.03.2010 by way of instituting a frivolous

case no. 9P/2010 through protection officer,

Begusarai and managed to get issued a frivolous

N.B.W dated 25.08.2010 through the husband of

protection officer, Gopal Kumar, Advocate,

district court, Begusarai against the

petitioner and his ailing old age mother

through SP Begusarai. Replication and

cancellation of N.B.W have been filed by the

petitioner on 03.03.2011 against this frivolous

case at Begusarai Court in Bihar. It is

pertinent to mention here that the petitioner

was totally unaware of it and was not in

receipt of any notice or summon against it. It

is also on the Supreme Court Record with SLP(C)

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

no. 19073/2013.

10. Hon’ble sir, again it became dormant and

did not file written statement (WS) before

Trial Court at New Delhi and did not join High

Court of Delhi even after receipt of service

Notice which is also on SCR.

11. Hon’ble sir, three SLPs has been filed by

the petitioner in this Hon’ble Court; one in

2012 vide SLP(C) no. 9854/2012 and two in 2013

vide SLP(C) no. 9483/2013 and SLP(C) no.

19073/2013.

12. Hon’ble sir, after the pronouncement of

Judgment by the High Court of Delhi in favour

of petitioner in MAT. APPL. 7/2012 on

23.07.2013; second time this volcano erupted in

2013 by way of instituting another frivolous

criminal case vide case no. 5591/2013 u/s

498A/323 of IPC and u/s 3/4 of D.P. Act with

filing date 07.02.2011 and first hearing date

05.12.2013 without the knowledge of petitioner.

It is pertinent to note here that the client of

Respondent No.04 has appeared before the Trial

Court at New Delhi on 09.02.2011 and

intentionally did not mention criminal case no.

5591/2013 filing date 7.2.2011 u/s 498A/323 of

IPC and u/s 3/4 of D.P Act to the Trial Court.

13. Hon’ble sir, the marriage was fraudulent

with misrepresentation of bride. I have never

ever been to the residence of rich IOCL client

of Respondent no.04 in my whole life. I even do

not know the multiple residential addresses of

rich IOCL client of Respondent no.04 since 12

years. For the first time I came to know the

official address of rich IOCL client of

Respondent no.04 on 09.02.2011 when she

supplied the proceedings of Begusarai Court

before the Trial Court at New Delhi.

14. Hon’ble sir, after winning the case MAT.

APPL. 7/2012 in 2013, the petitioner has

visited thrice to his parental house in Bihar

and has not received any Notice or Summon

against u/s 498A/323 of IPC and u/s 3/4 of D.P.

Act as on date.

15. Hon’ble sir, it is a backstabbing plans to

create and repeat another Kanahiya case (of

17th February, 2016 inside the Patiala House

Court premises at New Delhi) in the premises of

Begusarai Court against the petitioner.

16. Hon’ble sir, it also violates the

directions of this Hon’ble Court which has been

laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs State

of Bihar in Cr APP No. 1277 of 2014.

17. Hon’ble sir, three untimely deaths have

been occurred in the family of the petitioner

since 12 years. His family has been reduced to

one member family i.e. ailing old age mother

only now and these lavas are increasing day by

day against the petitioner; infringing his

right to life or personal liberty.

18. Hon’ble sir, if these increasing lavas are

not being stopped and not being punished then

petitioner and his mother will also disappear

untimely and his property will be usurped by

the client of the respondent no.04 and no one

will be left in their family to report to the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

19. Hon’ble sir, NALSA has been dropped from

the list of respondents because of defect

raised by this Hon’ble Court. CIC order dated

25.09.2014 has not been complied by the Delhi

State Legal Service Authority (DSLSA).

Notational Legal Service Authority (NALSA) has

not replied back the letter dated 13.04.2015 of

Department of Justice to the petitioner.

20. Hon’ble sir, it has been observed over the

period of 12 years that 7 out of 13 respondents

are from the same community i.e. Kayasth

community viz. Praveen Kumar, C&MD, IDPL; Veena

Kumari, Protection officer Begusarai; her

husband, Gopal Kumar, Advocate district court,

Begusarai; Yugal Kishore Sinha, DSP, Katihar;

Nawal Kishore Sinha, Accountant, SBI, ADB

Sonaili Bazar, Katihar; Dhirendra Prasad,

Advocate, district court, Katihar and Hari

Prasad, Assistant Commissioner, Food supplies &

consumer affairs, Dwarka, New Delhi.

21. Hon’ble sir, this petition is relied upon

the following Judgments of this Hon’ble court

viz. Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd

Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly AIR 1986 SC 1571;

Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College,

Shamli & Ors. v. Lakshmi Narain & Ors. AIR 1976

SC 888; Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar,

Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014, SCR; Menka

Gandhi Vs Union of India; S.S. Shetty v. Bharat

Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 12: (1958) SCR 442 and

Pannalal Jankidas v. Mohanlal, AIR 1951 SC 145:

(1950) SCR 979.

22. Hon’ble sir, 9 questions of laws; 13

respondents; two district courts and all the

three tier of Legal Aid Institutions are

arising out of this petition and has been

answered through 80 Annexures and 50 Grounds

including an application for Additional facts,

grounds, respondents and prayer vide diary no.

21529 dated 11.03.2016.

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1004292/

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1004292/

23. Hon’ble sir, justification for notice

against Respondent no. 04 to 13 has been

mentioned in this written argument, as to why

notice is required to be served against the

same.

24. Hon’ble sir, 5 prayers have been made in

this petition against district courts of

Begusarai Court in Bihar; district courts of

Patiala House Court in Delhi; Respondent no. 01

to 03; Respondent no.1 & 4 to 11 and Respondent

no. 12 & 13.

APPLICATION FOR EX-PARTE AD-INTERIM STAY:

25. Hon’ble sir, Respondent No. 01 & 02 did

not let me to work, kept me without work for

one month at Head Office to promote a closet

female executive (Kamana saini) of Respondent

No. 01 & 02 and transferred me to the plant

with mala fide intention without assigning any

reason thereof. My Official Note against

transferred order being refused to diary by the

Respondent No.02. Subsequently dismissed my

service without paying a single penny; setting

aside the Audi Alterm Partem Rule. Petitioner

has explored all available internal

administrative remedies w.e.f. 05.06.2014 to

24.09.2015 for enforcement of his contractual

employment. Patiala House Court retained the

petition for more than 6 months without its

jurisdiction to try this nature of suit.

Discrimination at work place has been exhibited

by Annexure P-11 page no. 103 to 109 VOL-I

dated 05.06.2014. Grounds have been taken as A

in page no.60 and B in page no.61. Transfer

order has been exhibited by Annexure P-12 page

no. 110 to 111 VOL-I dated 20.06.2014. Grounds

have been taken as J to L in page no.64.

Refusal to diary my official note against

transfer order by the respondent no. 02 has

been exhibited by Annexure P-13 page no. 112 to

113 VOL-I dated 20.06.2014. Grounds have been

taken as B in page no.61. Suppression of

whistle blower complaint against discrimination

at work place has been exhibited by Annexure P-

14 page no. 114 to 126 VOL-I dated 23.06.2014.

Grounds have been taken as A in page no.60 and

B in page no.61. Dismissal of service order has



taken as H in page no.63. Reply by Respondent

No. 01 & 02 has been exhibited by Annexure P-35

page no. 186 to 192 VOL-I dated 22.06.2015.

Grounds have been taken as M to U in page no.

from 65 to 70.

26. Hon’ble sir, Respondent No. 03 has upheld

the dismissal by its reply which has been

exhibited by Annexure P-17 page no. 131 to 139

VOL-I dated 24.12.2014. Grounds have been taken

as I in page no.63. Replication by the

petitioner has been exhibited by Annexure P-18


Grounds have been taken as I in page no.64.

Respondent no. 03 has closed the case without

settlement through online CPGRAMS which has



taken as I in page no.64. Another replication

by the petitioner has been exhibited by

Annexure P-36 page no. 193 to 200 VOL-I dated

29.06.2015. Grounds have been taken as I in

page no.64 and O in page no.65 to 66. The issue

of resjudicata has been raised by Respondent

No. 01 & 02 to jeopardize the conciliation

proceeding before Dy. Chief Labour

Commissioner, Central has been exhibited by

Annexure P-44 page no. 258 to 265 VOL-II dated

24.09.2015. Grounds have been taken as N in

page no.65. The Writ petition in letter form

has been hijacked by Respondent no. 01 & 02

from the post office which has been exhibited

by Annexure P-67 page no. 463 to 464 VOL-II

dated 30.12.2015. Grounds have been taken as D

in page no.62; N in page no.65; and W in page

no. 71. Respondent no. 01 & 02 has justified

the insubordination inflicted upon petitioner

through C&MD’s closet junior female executive

Kamana Saini, aged about 32, in his Written

Statement (WS) before SCJ, Patiala House Court

at New Delhi in the case no. 201/2015 has been

exhibited by Annexure P-42 page no. 232 VOL-I

dated 07.09.2015. Grounds have been taken as B

in page no.61. Respondent no. 01 & 02 has

justified no payment of salary required to pay

to the petitioner in his Written Statement (WS)

before SCJ, Patiala House Court at New Delhi in

the case no. 201/2015 has been exhibited by

Annexure P-42 page no. 234 VOL-I dated

07.09.2015. Grounds have been taken as C in

page no.61 and O in page no.65. Respondent no.

01 & 02 has justified no reason for transfer

and termination of service required to give to

the petitioner in their Written Statement (WS)

before SCJ, Patiala House Court at New Delhi in

the case no. 201/2015 has been exhibited by


07.09.2015. Grounds have been taken as H in

page no.63; J in page no. 64; K in page no. 64;

M in page no.65; Q in page no.66; R in page no.

67 and S in page no. 67. Respondent no. 01 & 02

has justified that no notice required for

termination of service of the petitioner in his

Written Statement (WS) before SCJ, Patiala

House Court at New Delhi in the case no.

201/2015 has been exhibited by Annexure P-42

page no. 244 VOL-I dated 07.09.2015. Grounds

have been taken as E to G in page no. from 62

to 63.

27. Hon’ble sir, as the contract is continuing

therefore an application has been filed for ex-

parte ad-interim order for stay in page no. 490

to 495.

28. Hon’ble sir, the ex-parte ad-interim order

for stay is important in the public interest

because the increasing magnitude of the

contractual white color employees due to

Government Policy in the present market

scenario in absence of any specific legislation

which governs the employment and working

conditions of white color workers which makes

them vulnerable in the hands of Power elite. It

is also important to discourage the arbitrary

and discriminatory state action against the

vulnerable common man. It is also important

because the petitioner cannot take gainful

employment during the pendency of the case or

during the continuation of the contract period

whichever is earlier.

WHY NOTICE OR SUMMON IS REQUIRED AGAINST

RESPONDENTS NO. 4 TO 13?

29. Hon’ble sir, Respondent No. 04 is the

root of disastrous volcano. Respondent No. 04

has misused and abused her vested power by way

of instituting frivolous litigation vide case

No. 9P/2010 dated 31.03.2010 before CJM Court

Begusarai, Bihar after a gap of 5 years for her

own vested interest which has been exhibited by


31.03.2010. Grounds have been taken as X in

page no.72 and which is also on the Supreme

Court Record with SLP(C)no. 9854/2012,

SLP(C)no. 9483/2013 and SLP(C)no. 19073/2013.

30. Hon’ble sir, time and again, respondent

No. 04 has misused and abused her vested power

by way of instituting another frivolous

criminal litigation against petitioner and his

ailing mother vide case No. 5591/2013 before

CJM Court, Begusarai, Bihar [filing date

07.02.2011 and first hearing date 05.12.2013

which has been supplied by the System Officer,

Begusarai, Bihar on 01.03.2016 against the

information sought against the Case No. 9P/2010

by the petitioner] for her own vested interest.

Information sought from System Officer,

District court Begusarai, Bihar by the

petitioner against the Case No. 9P/2010 has

been exhibited by Additional Annexure P-1 in

additional page no. 19 to 20 VOL-II dated

29.02.2016 and information supplied by the

System Officer, District court Begusarai, Bihar

to the petitioner has been exhibited by

Additional Annexure P-2 in additional page no.

21 to 22 VOL-II dated 01.03.2016. Additional

Grounds have been taken as A to H in Additional

page no. 9 to 11 VOL-II.

31. Hon’ble sir, this is another back stabbing

plan of Respondent No.04 to create and repeat

another Kanahiya case (of 17th February, 2016

inside the Patiala House Court premises) in the

premises of Begusarai Court. Hence, notice is

inevitable and required to be served against

Respondent No.04.

32. Hon’ble sir, Respondent No. 05 is Gopal

Kumar, Advocate, District Court Begusarai,

husband of Respondent No.04, managed to get

issued a frivolous NBW through SP Begusari

against the petitioner and his ailing mother

dated 25.08.2010 against the case No. 9P/2010

while the petitioner was not in receipt of any

notice or summon against this and was

struggling to save the life of his ailing

mother in ICU of AIIMS at New Delhi, for his

own vested interest, misused the law of the

land, diluted the piousness of Judicial System

which has been exhibited by Annexure P-2 page

no. 85 VOL-I dated 25.08.2010. Grounds have

been taken as Y in page no.72; D in page no.62

and W in page no.71 in main petition and which

is also on the Supreme Court Record with

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

SLP(C)no. 19073/2013. Hence, notice is required

to be served against Respondent No.05.

33. Hon’ble sir, another respondent No. 05 is

Dhirendra Prasad, Advocate, District Court,

Katihar, has given a threat to the life of the

petitioner and his pensioned mother to render

apology or to face criminal case u/s 500 of IPC

against the Notice u/s 80 CPC to SBI accountant

and Bank manager sonaili. Very first para of

his reply is false as the recent ATM slip dated

06.03.2016 is evident of this fact; ATM still

gives KYC alert, “your account requires KYC

updation. Immediately call on your home branch

with requisite documents.” It is pertinent to

note that the customer is a family pension

holder and not a direct pension holder.

Customer is submitting her Life Certificate

every year in the month of November since 2007

after an untimely death of her (Head master)

husband. Nevertheless, address proof with a

copy of P.P.O has been resubmitted and has been

received by the accountant SBI sonaili on

26.10.2015. Further, Bank Manager directed the

customer through email dated 12.11.2015 to

submit her Aadhar Card for updation in the

system, while Aadhar is not implemented in that

region as on date. However, Customer has

complied the order of the Bank Manager and sent

her Aadhar card through email dated 12.11.2015.

Yet, Manager has not updated the KYC of the

customer in the system till date. Ironically,

he did not reply the para no. 03 of Notice u/s

80 CPC against the direct refusal by SBI

accountant Sonaili to open up the ATM machine

on 26.10.2015 as the pensioned customer could

not climb to the upstairs for withdrawal of her

pension. However, he defended the technical

manipulation and wrong command fed in the ATM

machine at Dwarka, New Delhi which establishes

his nexus with SBI, Dwarka branch to hack the

ATM pin. In his reply, he also directed the

pensioned customer to transfer her family

pension to home branch, what he calls; New

Delhi as her home branch; while customer is

aborigine of sonaili having her lifetime

acquired property over there. It is also

defeating the very purpose of core banking

system of SBI. Notice u/s 80 CPC has been


VOL-II dated 02.11.2015. Grounds have been

taken as AA to BB in page no.73 to 74. SBI

reply has been exhibited by Annexure P-72 page

no. 484 to 489 VOL-II dated 11.01.2016. Grounds

have been taken as CC in page no.74 to 75; D in

page no.62 and W in page no. 71 in main

petition. Hence, notice is required.

34. Hon’ble sir, respondent No. 06 is Yugal

Kishore Sinha, DSP Katihar who was sent to the

house of the petitioner’s mother dated

01.08.2011 at 4:00PM when Ms Deepa Sharma,

Principal Judge family court Dwarka court at

New Delhi refused to take on record the ex

parte evidence of the petitioner at 3:00PM

dated 01.08.2011. On the other hand, DSP

Katihar did not take on record the statement of

petitioner’s mother intentionally as it was

against the rich IOCL client of Respondent

No.04. Petitioner has reported against DSP

Katihar to SP Katihar through several emails

but SP Katihar did not pay any heed to it which

has been exhibited by Annexure P-3 page no. 86

to 88 VOL-I dated 03.08.2011; Annexure P-4 page

no. 89 to 90 VOL-I dated 29.09.2011 and

Annexure P-5 page no. 91 to 92 VOL-I dated

31.12.2012. Grounds have been taken as Z in

page no.73; D in page no.62 and W in page no.71

in main petition. Hence, notice is required.

35. Hon’ble sir, respondent No. 07 is

accountant SBI Sonaili against whom notice u/s

80 CPC has been sent for attacking the pension

account of customer, harassing the customer

unnecessarily, not removing KYC alert, refusing

to open ATM machine for withdrawal, planning to

hack the ATM pin of customer, tracking the

customer till Delhi with ulterior motive and

establishing nexus with Dwarka SBI Branch to

hack the ATM pin of customer. SBI Sonaili has

replied back through Dhirendra Prasad,

Advocate, District court Katihar threatening

the life of the petitioner and his mother to

render apology or to face criminal case u/s 500

of IPC against the Notice u/s 80 CPC to SBI

(accountant and bank manager) sonaili. Service

record of Respondent No. 07 is self-explanatory

that he has been demoted from Branch Manager to

Accountant and transferred from SBI Morshanda

to SBI Sonaili. Notice u/s 80 CPC has been



taken as AA to BB in page no.73 to 74. Reply

has been exhibited by Annexure P-72 page no.

484 to 489 VOL-II dated 11.01.2016. Grounds

have been taken as CC in page no.74 to 75;

Grounds taken as D in page no.62 and W in page

no. 71 in main petition. Hence, notice is

required to be served against Respondent No.07.

36. Hon’ble sir, respondent No. 08 is Branch

Manager SBI Sonaili. Revenue of property of the

petitioner’s mother has been attacked by Branch

Manager SBI Sonaili in the garb of Green Remit

Card (GRC), while GRC is not mandatory and it

is not applicable for home branch. Chairman and

LHO patna have been intimated against the

refusal of Branch Manager to deposit the cash

against her saving account by her attendant of

property which has been exhibited by Annexure

P-68 page no. 465 to 467 VOL-II dated

04.01.2016 and Annexure P-69 page no. 468 to

470 VOL-II dated 05.01.2016. Grounds have been

taken as AA in page no.73. Unsatisfactory and

threatening reply of SBI Sonaili has been



taken as CC in page no.74 to 75; Grounds taken

as D in page no.62 and W in page no. 71 in main

petition. Hence, notice is required.

37. Hon’ble sir, respondent No. 09 is Branch

Manager, SBI, Dwarka sec-08 at New Delhi.

Branch Manager did not pay any heed to the

complaint against wrong command fed in the ATM

machine to hack the ATM pin of the customer

instead cornered the onus to the ATM vendor, as

maintenance of ATM machine is a outsourced

service by the SBI. Branch Manager, in his

reply against the notice u/s 80 CPC, misled the

fact, “we regret for the inconvenience caused

to you while withdrawing money from ATM due to

availability of only Rs. 100/- denomination

Notes in ATM as high value notes were

exhausted. We further advise that since the ATM

services are outsourced, we have taken up the

matter strongly with the vendor. However,

charges recovered for excess ATM transactions

have already refunded to you”. Chairman and LHO

Delhi have been intimated against the wrong

command fed in the ATM machine ID NO.

SIBJ000733445 which comes under the maintenance

jurisdiction of SBI Delhi Cantt. However,

setting a wrong command for limiting the

withdrawal of Rs. 1000/- at one time in one

clique has nothing to do with the low value

denomination of currencies. Even if there is a

low value denomination of currencies fed in ATM

machine, one can withdraw Rs. 22000/- in one

transaction; machine cannot stop the customer

from dispensing Rs. 22000/- with low value

denomination of currencies. While in the

present case machine was stopping the customer

from dispensing Rs. 22000/- even with low value

denomination of currencies at one time

transaction. The main crucial points regarding

external and internal audit report of ATM

machine server and CCTV footage of ATM machine

between 10:29 AM to 14:29 PM dated 29.10.2015

were neither shared nor supplied any materials

against the said complaint either by LHO Delhi

or by Branch Manager, SBI Dwarka Sec-8. Notice

u/s 80 CPC has been exhibited by Annexure P-51

page no. 326 to 341 VOL-II dated 04.11.2015.

Acknowledgement of complaint by Chairman SBI



have been taken as DD to FF from page no.75 to

77; D in page no.62 and W in page no.71.

Misleading reply of SBI Dwarka has been



taken as DD to FF from page no.75 to 77;

Grounds taken as D in page no.62 and W in page

no.71 in main petition. Hence, notice is

required to be served against Respondent No.10.

38. Hon’ble sir, respondent No. 10 is Hari

Prasad, Assistant Commissioner, Food supplies &

consumer affairs, South West district, NCT of

Delhi gave a suspected call to the petitioner

without any complaint, exactly at the time of

LPG delivery by the delivery man of local Gas

agency, Gauri Enterprises with an ulterior

motive to verify the petitioner’s identity to

hack his confidential data from agency as it is

Aadhar linked with bank account of the

petitioner in Delhi. [Earlier, long back, the

petitioner had exposed the nexus of Ration

mafia with the Government officials of Food

supplies & consumer affairs, South West

district, NCT of Delhi. A SCN was issued to the

FPS owner against non-distribution of the

Ration commodity.] It has been exhibited by


30.11.2015. Grounds have been taken as GG in

page no.77; Grounds taken as D in page no.62

and W in page no.71 in main petition. Hence,

notice is required against Respondent No.10.

39. Hon’ble sir, respondent No. 11 is Ankit

Bhatia, AM (LPG-S), Delhi Indane Area Officer.

Local LPG Indane agency has generated wrong

bill against the petitioner deliberately at the

behest of respondent no. 10. Complaint against

deliberate wrong bill has been sent to local

LPG agency under the intimation of Executive

Director LPG. Respondent no.11 has replied back

unsatisfactorily hiding the fact in the garb of

recent build in software and few technical

changes. However, ground has been taken against

his reply that Indian Oil Corporation is

managing centralized software, any changes in

software is applicable for the entire Indane

customer, not regionally targeting the specific

customer, which has resulted in strengthening

cynicism against the misuse of public

authorities against the petitioner. Complaint

to LPG distributor under the intimation to

executive Director LPG has been exhibited by


30.11.2015. Grounds have been taken as GG in

page no.77; D in page no.62 and W in page

no.71. Reply by Delhi LPG Indane Area Officer



have been taken as HH in page no.78; Grounds

taken as D in page no.62 and W in page no.71 in

main petition. Hence, notice is required.

40. Hon’ble sir, Additional Respondent No. 12

is Chief Secretary of Bihar. An additional

application has been filed vide diary no. 21529

on 11.03.2016 before this Hon’ble Court because

after filing the present Writ (C) petition 90

of 2016 on 29.01.2016, petitioner’s parental

house being attacked and turned into public

toilets by elected Panchayat leader, Mukhiya

with the blessing of SP Katihar. When SP

Katihar did not take any action against Mukhiya

then Petitioner escalated his complaint against

SP Katihar to the Director General of Police,

Bihar; Chief Minister Secretariat, Bihar;

District Magistrate Katihar; MLA Kadwa and MP

Katihar. No FIR has been registered; no reply

has been supplied by any agencies so far. The

commission of criminal trespass by an elected

panchayat leader and no action by the State

Government agencies legitimizes the bad

governance and establishes the lawlessness in

the state against the life and security of a

common man. Email complaint to DGP Bihar has

been exhibited by Additional Annexure P-4 in


03.03.2016. Online complaint to Chief Minister

Secretariat, Government of Bihar has been

exhibited by Additional Annexure P-7 in


04.03.2016. Fax and Email Complaint to District

Magistrate, Katihar has been exhibited by


28 to 30 VOL-II dated 04.03.2016. Email

Complaint to MLA, Kadwa has been exhibited by


31 to 33 VOL-II dated 04.03.2016. Email

complaint to MP, Katihar has been exhibited by


36 to 38 VOL-II dated 08.03.2016. Additional

Grounds have been taken as I to L in additional

page no.11 to 12; Grounds taken as D in page

no.62 and W in page no.71 in main petition.

Hence, notice is required.

41. Hon’ble sir, Additional Respondent No. 13

is SP Katihar. My father’s house who happened

to be Head Master of that area, is being turned

into a public toilets with banners, posters and

installation of tube wells/bore wells and

public toilets inside the premises of the house

having text “toilets for female only at the

entry gate” and “toilets for male only” in the

middle of the building in the midst of

religious gathering called Bhagwat through SP

Katihar and local Mukhiya without the consent

of petitioner. Local Mukhiya has admitted his

act of criminal trespass to the petitioner over

telephone on 03.03.2016. SP Katihar has not

taken any action on my faxed complaint dated

03.03.2016 till the end of religious gathering

called Bhagwat dated 05.03.2016. SP Katihar did

not even order for removal of the posters,

banners, public toilets and public bore

wells/tube wells even after a fax complaint on

03.03.2016; in spite of information over

landline and mobile on 03.03.2016 rather SP

Katihar let it be remained till the end of

religious gathering w.e.f. 28.02.2016 to

05.03.2016. It is pertinent to note that any

Mukhiya of Kantiya Panchayat had not committed

such heinous crime of criminal trespass against

the petitioner’s house in the last 36 years. It

is also pertinent to note that heavy cops were

deployed in front of the house of the

petitioner which happened to be the venue of

the (More than 10 lakhs budgeted) religious

functions/gathering under the control of SP

Katihar. Hence, SP Katihar has legitimized the

act of criminal trespass by local Mukhiya. SP

Katihar neither took any action against the

Local Mukhiya nor replied back to Chief

Minister Secretariat complaint no. 99999-

0303160113 within the stipulated time of 14

days. SP Katihar has legitimized the

infringement of fundamental rights of a common

man. Faxed complaint to SP Katihar has been

exhibited by Additional Annexure P-3 in


03.03.2016. Additional Grounds have been taken

as M to O in additional page no.12 to 13;

Grounds also have been taken as D in page no.62

and W in page no.71 in the main petition.

Hence, notice is inevitable and required to be

served against the Respondent no.13 for

enforcement of fundamental rights of the

petitioner under Article 21.

42. Hon’ble sir, CIC order dated 25.09.2014

has not been complied by the Delhi State Legal

Services Authority(DSLSA) which has been


VOL-I dated 25.09.2014. Grounds have been taken

as V in page no.71. Hence, appropriate action

is inevitable against Delhi State Legal

Services Authority (DSLSA) in the public

interest.

43. Hon’ble sir, letter from Department of

Justice to NALSA dated 13.04.2015 has not been

replied back by National Legal Service

Authority(NALSA) to the petitioner which has


150 VOL-I dated 13.04.2015. NALSA’s letter to

the Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Service

Committee has been exhibited by Annexure P-23


NALSA’s letter to the Secretary, Delhi High

Court Legal Service Committee has been


VOL-I dated 13.05.2015. NALSA’s letter to the

Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services

Authority has been exhibited by Annexure P-25


Grounds have been taken as V in page no.71.

Hence, appropriate action is inevitable against

National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) in

the public interest.

PRAYERS:

44. Hon’ble sir, issue a writ of mandamus or

other appropriate writ order or direction

directing respondent No.01 to 03 for

enforcement of the Fundamental Rights under

Article 14, 15 and 21 of the petitioner

staying/setting aside/quashing/modifying/ the

termination of service order dated 08.12.2014

to reinstate him with full back wages.

45. Hon’ble sir, issue a writ of mandamus or

other appropriate writ order or direction

directing respondent No. 01 and 04 to 11 for


Article 21 to initiate appropriate action and

pass necessary directions to prevent such

incidence of misuse of Government Machinery

against consistent planting of criminal

conspiracy against the vulnerable petitioner

and his old age ailing mother as the petitioner

has been left with only one member in his

family now, after an untimely demise of his

father in the similar fashion.

46. Hon’ble sir, a prayer has been taken

against Patiala House Court to issue a writ of

prohibition or Certiorari or other

appropriate writ order or direction to the

Patiala House Court at New Delhi on the facts

and in the circumstances of the case for


Article 14 and 21.

47. Hon’ble sir, additional prayer has been

taken against Begusarai Court to issue a writ

of prohibition or Certiorari or other

appropriate writ order or direction to the

Begusarai Court at Begusarai, Bihar to initiate

appropriate action against the respondent no.04

and her Advocate husband Gopal Kumar for

instituting and continuing a frivolous

litigation against the petitioner and his

ailing mother and to dispose of the long

pending frivolous litigation against the

petitioner and his ailing mother and pass

necessary directions to prevent such incidence

of instituting frivolous litigations against

petitioner and his ailing mother for


Article 21.

48. Hon’ble sir, additional prayer has been

taken against Respondent No. 12 & 13 to issue a

writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ

order or direction directing respondent No. 12

and 13 for enforcement of the Fundamental

Rights under Article 21 to initiate appropriate

action against Sh. Bihari Lal Bubna, Mukhiya,

Kantiya Panchayat, Sonaili, Kadwa, Katihar and

pass necessary directions to prevent such

incidence against the vulnerable petitioner and

his old age ailing mother as the petitioner has

been left with only one member in his family

now, after an untimely demise of his father in

the similar fashion.

OBSERVATION OF PETITIONER:

49. Hon’ble sir, at the end, the petitioner

would like to put his 12 years painful

observation against this unusual case/dispute;

the actual fight is between rich and poor,

powerful and powerless, strong and weak, have

and have not’s and elite and non-elite,

irrespective of sex, caste, creed and

nationality. A self-esteemed common man will

prefer to end his life in this endless struggle

rather than to cow down before the rich and

power elite.

50. Hon’ble sir, I have been punished by the

Indian Governance System since 12 years and

subjected to virtual death for saving the life

of my ailing old age parents and protecting the

basic fabric of the institutions of Family,

Marriage and Kinship.

51. Hon’ble sir, will any institutions or

public return precious 12 years of victim poor

and powerless man? Will any institutions or

public return his GOD like father who starved

himself to educate his only son?

DRAWN & FILED BY:

PETITIONER IN PERSON

OM PRAKASH

NEW DELHI:

FILED ON :08.04.2016

Settled by: Petitioner

VIDE DIARY NO.28889

written arguments against writ 90 of 2016

Documents