Repeated Rape of Justice

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

.PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

REPEATED RAPE

JUSTICEOF


Other books by the same Author :Pangs of a Petitioner for Justice

Scam of Illegal Promotions (in press)Me Judice (Ed.)Justice Disgraced

Sikhism and the Sikhs (Ed.)

Was Bhindranwale Congress Creation?


Baldev Singh

2014

M.A.

Difficulties break some men but make others.

REPEATED RAPE

JUSTICEOF

Nelson Mandela


Printers:PRINTWELL, 146, INDUSTRIAL FOCAL POINT, AMRITSAR.

REPEATED RAPE OF JUSTICEby

BALDEV SINGH245, URBAN ESTATE,

KAPURTHALA - 144 601 (INDIA)MOB. 098151-20919

Email : [email protected]

Published by

THE AUTHOR

ISBN 978-93-5126-165-0

First Edition 2014

Price: Rs. 100-00


This book is dedicated to the memory

of those freedom fighters

who had sacrificed every bit of their life

so that their country could be freed

from foreign yoke and

its people could feel the glow of

freedom, prosperity, equality, brotherhood and

justice.

And also to those who are struggling

to preserve its freedom and

to save it from falling into

hands of rascals, roughs, scoundrels,

who are bent upon destroying it.


CONTENTS

Preface 9Nehru protects corrupt Krishna Menon 17

How Shiekh Govt. dismissed by Nehru 19

Jazia in Hindustan 22What is on Record of Case File 28

Wolf and Lamb Story 29

Order dt. 16.11.2010 of National ConsumerDisputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi(Appendix-I) 39

Special Leave Petition No. 13719/2011(Appendix-II) 40

Order dt. 4.7.2011 of the Supreme Court(Appendix-III) 106

SC Registrars letter dt. 7.7.2011(Appendix-IV) 107

Oath of Office of Supreme/High Court Judges (Appendix-V) 108

Higher Judiciary Guilty of Seven Sins:Justice (Retd.) Ruma Pal (Appendix-VI) 109

Know Thy Leaders and Rulers (Appendix-VII) 111


.PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

PREFACE

Every human being has a dream of building his own houseto live in. This dream is in all living beings also like birds,animals etc. Only snakes do not build their own living places.God or nature has not given hands to snakes for building theirprotection places. They capture rats' or other animal's holesmade by them for their own living and protection. My desireto own a house was not different from others. I had no moneyto buy a plot by paying lump sum amount but could purchaseon instalments. I was looking for Government advertisementsso that I could apply, and if lucky in draw of lots, could buyone. During 1984 I was posted at Patna and had seen with owneyes what it meant to be a bearded and turbaned person,therefore, decided to live in Punjab. Earlier also such things hadhappened with the Sikhs during 1710, 1713-18 and during1947. Wise man learns from own experience and wiser fromothers' experience but fools don't learn at all. (As per JusticeMarkandey Katju, 90% of Indians are fools/idiots. I am not surein which category he falls 10% or 90%). I have been applyingfor plots in all Punjab Govt. ads but was not lucky. Later onI came to know that luck comes with money. If you apply andbribe the right person in that agency your name appears in drawof lots. But I did not like to adopt that mean. PUDA Jalandharadvertised for plots at Kapurthala. At that time I was posted atAmritsar. Kapurthala was a princely state founded by JassaSingh Ahluwalia, one of the 11 Misals of Pre-Ranjit Singh periodand most turbulent period of the Sikhs facing many attacks ofAhmad Shah Abdali. A Punjabi phrase had developed, "KHADAPITA LAHE DA, BAAKI AHMAD SHAHE DA". It meant thatwhatever you eat and drink is yours; rest all belongs to AhmadShah, who will loot and take away, everything that is left.


Sardar Jassa Singh was honoured by the community for hisservices as a Sultan-ul-Quam. He was leader of Dal Khalsaduring attack by the Afghan invader Abdali and had over 50deep wounds on his body. He had rescued 2200 Indian womenat Goindwal being taken away by Ahmad Shah Abdali after hehad won battle of Panipat in the year 1761. During those daysSher Shah Suri Marg (G.T. Road, now NH 1) was passingthrough Goindwal. Later on the British changed its course aftercapturing Punjab kingdom. I was happy to live in such a city.I applied for it and got it through draw of lots in March 2000.It was barely 20 Km. from my village Goindwal. I visited thesite, there was no sign of any colony. It looked like jungle orbarren land. After allotment letter came in March 2001, I visitedagain and found position was same as earlier. Actually whatPUDA and other Govt. agencies are doing that after allotmentof plots 25% payment of plots is demanded and with that moneythey start the process of planning and infrastructure constructionafter making final payments to farmers from whom land isacquired. Tenders are called for construction of roads, sewerage,water tanks etc. Conditions like 11 and 12 are inserted inallotment letters by Govt. agencies and private builders tododge the consumer. Ground reality is very much different fromactual position and to the detrimental of interest of consumersfor whom the Consumer Protection Act-86 is made by theParliament. Perception of Legislature, executive and judiciaryare different in practice. Govt. ads of JAGO GRAHAK JAGO ,says it provides relief to consumer on following grounds/issues :

Relief available to consumers!l Removal of defects from the goods.l Replacement of the goods.l Refund of price paid.l Award of compensation for loss or injury suffered.l Removal of defects or deficiencies in the service.l To discontinue the unfair trade practices or restrictive

trade practices.l To withdraw hazardous goods from being offered for

sale.

Preface10


l To issue corrective advertisement to neutralize theeffect of misleading advertisement.

So far no consumer has challenged these arbitraryprovisions 11 and 12 as ultra vires being arbitrary, unreasonableand fraud upon innocent customers who are totally unawareof legal intricacies and also does not want to DHAKE KHAO incourt - Kachehri. It needs some rich consumer and dynamicadvocate to challenge it and bring relief to common consumers,who is poor and not so capable. It was for these aforementionedreasons that infrastructure at PUDA was not ready andconditions 11 and 12 could never have been implemented byPUDA itself, that a 3 years moratorium for construction wasdecided by H.O. PUDA, Mohali from 12.6.2002 to 12.6.2005vide its letter dt. 5.10.2004. I visited the site during December2003 from Goindwal again, even at that time work oninfrastructure was going on. PUDA was not in position to givepossession and demarcation as per condition 11 of the allotmentletter within 60 days. Rather it was deficiency in service on thepart of the PUDA to have failed to implement its own condition.This condition had become non-operational by own act of PUDAafter deciding 3 years of moratorium for construction butHon'ble Justice G.S. Singhvi dismissed my petition on theground (orally) that condition 11 was not read by me being aneducated person. But written orders are entirely different.(Appendix-III, p. 106). He is highly educated and highly placedconstitutional authority appointed by the H.E. the President ofIndia mainly for the purpose of reading, hearing and decidingkeeping in mind the merits of the Case, Oath of Office and theConstitution. That is why Distt. Forum, Jalandhar, who waslocally located, was aware of the ground reality and hadallowed my petition on merits and ordered,

"Respondent would not charge any non-constructionfee till demarcation and possession is given to thecomplainant."

It was also argued and that the Oxford dictionary meaning

Preface 11


of word 'MORATORIUM' was read out, 'A TEMPORARYPROHIBITION OF AN ACTIVITY'. That the National ConsumerCommission has made wrong interpretation of the wordmoratorium. But it did not cut ice with him and the SLP wasdismissed. I was aghast that the same Bench had taken CentralGovernment by horns in "2G spectrum scam", but in thiscase.....? I would request readers to go through cursory readingof the SLP, which is part of this book in hand. Any independentand legal mind would agree that grave injustice has been donenot only to the petitioner but to the whole consumercommunity. It also amounts to great relief to the agency andother agencies dealing with housing of citizens for their illegal,arbitrary actions and also a lost opportunity to plug massivecorruption and arbitrariness of officers at every stage of housebuilders/housing agencies. Owners who are suffering helplesslylike lamb who are put before wolf their genuine arguments areignored and eaten up. Every day is day of wolf.

Most notable and interesting point in this case is that I hadfiled complaint/petition before Distt. Forum, Jalandhar withprayers that I was charged 15% interest on housing instalmentsagainst National policy about housing and that the sanction of mybuilding plan was not issued inspite of the fact that fee and papersare submitted. That these two points have never ever beenadjudicated by State Consumer Commission and NationalCommission. And the Hon'ble Supreme Court never thoughtit is worth consideration at all. That at State Consumer CommissionMember Piyare Lal Garg did not allow me to argue and when Itried to argue he snubbed me and did not allow me to speak, asif I was criminal before him, even criminals have right to speak,(was he influenced? It is a matter of speculation). Retired ArmyOfficer was sitting like a dumb doll. He was presiding member.Earlier my case was listed before Justice S.N. Aggarwal, FirstBench. For final hearing it was shifted to Second Bench. Why?

At National Consumer Commission, New Delhi whenNotice was issued, I had developed some hope for justice butwhen final order was passed much water had flown the GangaMayia. I reproduce the Order dt. 12.7.2010 :

Preface12


"Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, accordingto him, when the respondent authority itself granted amoratorium for construction of a house for a period of3 years from 12.3.2002 to 11.6.2005, there was noquestion of the authorities charging extension fee forthe year 2005 and 2006. By virtue of the moratorium,the petitioner complainant was entitled to commencethe construction within 3 years after 12.6.2005.

The point raised by the petitioner needs consideration.Issue notice to the respondent returnable on 21.9.2010.Meanwhile, operation of the impugned order is stayed.

That the respondent after seeking three adjournments tofile reply did not file any reply/written statement to the notice.The respondent was also fined Rs. 2500/- for not filing replyby Justice K.S. Gupta. At next hearing he had retired and JusticeR.C. Jain took over as presiding member. That made thedifference? Final arguments took place on 12.2.2011. On theday of arguments as soon as I started arguing my case, presidingmember Justice R.C. Jain was reluctant to allow me to argue,as if I was going to waste Hon'ble Commission's time. Theyusually allow lots of time to advocates. However, Member ofthe bench Mr. S.K. Naik told him that he is arguing onmoratorium issue. Then I was allowed and I read out letter dt.5.10.04 of the PUDA granting 3 years of moratorium forconstruction. Then I also argued that no reply is filed to thenotice, that 15% interest is charged, no policy on interest is filedby the respondent, no notice was issued to demand extensionfee, no sanction of building plan is delivered to the petitioner.While I was arguing advocate for the respondent was asked whyno reply is filed even after taking 3 adjournments, that no policyletter about interest is filed in two lower Forums and no decisionin terms of condition 12 is filed to charge extension fee. Thatthe decision will be taken what is on the record of the file. Thatat no stage meaning or interpretation of word 'MORATORIUM'was discussed by any one but strangely enough my petition was

Preface 13


dismissed on the ground that the petitioner/complainantmisunderstood the meaning of word, 'moratorium'. That therelevant part of the order is reproduced,

"It appears that the petitioner/complainant hasmisunderstood the meaning of moratorium. The meaningof the word 'moratorium' as per Oxford Dictionary is 'alegal authorization to debtors to postpone payment.' Nodoubt the respondent/opposite party/PUDA had provideda moratorium period of three years w.e.f. 12th of June,2002. In this case the decision of the respondent/opposites party /PUDA can only be interpreted to meanthat allottees were not required to pay extension fee/charges, if they were liable to pay, during the period 12thJune 2002 to 11th of June, 2005. The moratorium didnot mean waiver of the extension fee."

There is Punjabi proverb, JUTT MACHLA KHUDA NOONLE GAYE CHOR (if any person becomes unreasonable andbiased, he thinks God has been stolen by thief). That themeaning of word 'moratorium' in the Concise Oxford Dictionary,Eleventh Edition of 2004 is,

"a temporary prohibition of an activity.

AndLaw a legal authorization to debtor to postponepayment".

That the PUDA is very powerful Govt. agency/dept. inmen, material, money and maneuvering things in their favour.Individuals like me, who are weak and poor, are like Makhi-Machhar before them, unless God stands with me like LordKrishna stood with Pandavas.

That the conditions 11 and 12 were countered andcontradicted by me before National Consumer Commission asfollows :

"4. That the State Commission has erred in ignoring theaverment of the appellant that condition 12 of theallotment letter says,

Preface14


"In case of non-construction of the plot, on your ownrequest, you may be allowed extension in time forconstruction of the building on payment of extensionfees as determined by PUDA from time to time."

That at what time and rate the respondent haddetermined/decided to start charging extension fees isnot placed on record, either at Ld. Distt. Forum orHon'ble State Commission, therefore, the whole actionof the respondent PUDA is arbitrary, illegal and not inaccordance with law.

5. That the State Commission has erred in ignoring thefact that after declaring moratorium for 3 years from12.6.02 conditions of allotment letter No 11 and 12become non-operational by the own act of therespondent, therefore, allowing appeal on this groundis erroneous and wrong. That the delay in sanction ofZoning plan was due to the fact that infrastructure ofroad, sewerage, water pipes were not laid, nor electricpolls were erected, therefore, not fit to give demarcationand possession of plots. No one could build a houseunder such circumstances. That the respondent was notin position to give demarcation and possession of plots."

8. That the State Commission has erred to ignore theaverment of the appellant that sanction of plan of plotNo 245 of the appellant is not delivered to him. Sanctionremains in papers only."

Actually my troubles started with non payment of bribefor sanction of building plan. My architect asked for Rs 2000for his work and Rs 2000 for giving it to PUDA people for their'service' charges. It is uncivilized to call it a bribe in modernIndia shining: Bharat Desh Mahan Hai, Har Koi Yahan BeimanHai. The ground reality is that if any one wants to get sanctionof building plan in any Government agency like PUDA,Municipal Corporation, Improvement Trust etc. in any part ofIndia one has to pay bribe for its sanction. It is so routine matter

Preface 15


that no one objects to it and scumbs like lamb before wolf. Iam sure if Justice G.S. Singhvi, after retirement, wants to builthis house at Jodhpur he will have to go through same process,if he does not throw his weight being Judge of Apex Court.

I told my architect to prepare building plan and otherpapers of my house and give it to me, I will send it myself andI do not want to pay extra Rs 2000. I had developed bad habitof not paying such money. I am a bad person but 'good' peopledo not hesitate in paying such money. I would like to give fewexamples of political leaders and their views, before I proceedfurther with my narration. When some one talked to PanditJawahar Lal Nehru about growing corruption immediately afterindependence. His stoic reply was that money remains in Indiait is not going outside the country. When same concern was putup before Mrs Indira Gandhi, her reply was that corruption isworld wide phenomenon. At this juncture money had alreadystarted going and pilling up in foreign countries especiallySwitzerland. 'Honest' Manmohan Singh cannot see corruptionaround. People are being fed on his personal honesty. A. Rajais recent revelation but earlier Arjun Singh had played havocwith higher education, especially in privatization of it. TheHonest, Economist P.M. could see nothing bad in it and did notcheck him. A recent classic example of our politicians came tofore when Bhajan Lal died. People in India are all praise for deadman. It is not good to talk bad about dead man. Amongst hisgood qualities a person narrated his first hand experience withhim. A farmer complaint to Bhajan Lal that Patwari isnot giving farad of his land and is demanding Rs 500/- and "Iam a poor farmer, I cannot pay". Bhajan Lal quickly took outRs 500/- note from his pocket and gave it to farmer for givingit to Patwari and also advised the farmer that these governmentemployees have to be looked after by us all. He was mostfavourite chief minister of Mrs. Indira Gandhi and Partap SinghKairon most favourite of her father Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru.Kairon was indicted by Das Commission. I give two glaringexamples how indicted Krishna Menon favourite of Pt. Jawahar

Preface16


Lal Nehru, first PM and coming from a family of threegeneration freedom fighters, was helped to escape punishmentand also appointed as Cabinet-Minister. And how Sheikh Mohd.Abdullah was dismissed as CM of J&K in 1953. Both were oneman decisions in the largest democracy in the world. M.O.Mathai was Spl. Asst. to then P.M. from 1946 to 1959 and usedto live in P.M.'s house and was available to Nehru 24 hrs everyday. This is first hand information. If this is our biggining thenwhy blame others now?

NEHRU PROTECTS CORRUPT KRISHNA MENON

I quote M.O. Mathai in Krishna Menon case:"In the summer of 1955, aware of my good relationswith the Comptroller and Auditor-General A.K. Chandraand Defence Secretary M.K. Vellodi, both of whom wereknown to be bitter enemies of Krishna Menon, Nehruasked me to privately discuss with them the questionof finally disposing of the various scandals in whichKrishna Menon was involved. The major scandals were:

The Jeep Contract : Owing to difficulties in obtainingjeeps urgently needed by the army for the Kashmiroperations, Krishna Menon struck a deal with anadventurous intermediary called Potter who had aprivate firm with a capital of twenty pounds. Generousadvances were paid to Potter who supplied second hand,reconditioned jeeps. When the jeeps arrived in India, thearmy experts rejected them as unserviceable, KrishnaMenon was asked to stop further payments to Potter.Government suffered a loss of 136,052, equivalent toRs. 1.8 million; and Potter had further claims.

Procurement of Ammunition and Grenades : Again,these were through adventurous intermediaries whowere men of no substance. The principal one was a mancalled Cleminson who was involved in a criminal case

Preface 17


before. Potter was also brought in, most probable tocompensate him for his claims in the jeep contract.Reckless extra payments were authorized by KrishnaMenon. The excess payments, which became a total lossto government, were estimated at about 500,000 orabout Rs. 7.2 millions.

In both these deals there had been procedural andtechnical irregularities and errors of judgement both atthe stage of the negotiations and later at the stage ofinterpretation and enforcement of the terms of thecontracts.

Advance Payment for the Acquisition of the GaietyTheatre : It was Krishna Menon's utter and inexcusablestupidity, which some people termed as a diabolicalswindle by him, to have paid 17,000 or aboutRs. 228,000 in July 1950 to a private company floatedin December 1949 with a nominal capital of 1000 anda paid up capital of 2. The adventurer Cleminson wasinvolved in this also. The amount had to be ultimatelywritten off by Government. I closely questioned KrishnaMenon on this and asked him about the circumstancessurrounding the deal. I reminded him that in 1950 therewere no Kashmir operations ! Krishna Menon wasuncomfortable, evaded my questions, and said, "Oldman, get me a cup of tea." And while he was sippingtea someone else came in, and Krishna Menon heaveda sigh of relief and left.

Then there were allegations about the lease of residentialpremises, and exchange of cars. But they werecomparatively of minor matters.

(Reminiscences of the Nehru Age, p. 175)

Again, I quote M.O. Mathai to show how Shiekh Abdullahas CM was dismissed. It was not a cabinet decision. One manPt. J.L. Nehru decided it and implemented it without makingany official record of it, without taking any approval from the

Preface18


Union Cabinet. An illegal order was implemented. NowSupreme Court has ordered in 2013 that no oral orders shouldbe implemented. Officers should insist on written orders.Operation Blue Star of June 84 was also oral order of IndiraGandhi. Now, it is revealed in RTI inquiry. Lt. Gen. Sinha hadasked for written order in 1981 to arrest Bhindrawala. He wasnot promoted by her as Army Chief. Beautiful faces ugly mindsand actions. The seeds of Emergency and the autocratic IndiraGandhi can be seen in her father, when she proclaimed internalemergency without Union Cabinet approval.

HOW SHIEKH GOVT. DISMISSED BY NEHRU

One day in 1953 Nehru called me and said he wantedsomething brief to be typed, but did not wish to giveit to any PA. I noted down the points and some of thephrases he wanted to use. Then I locked myself in mybedroom and typed out on a plain sheet of paper a"Memorandum of Instructions." It was not addressed toanyone; it was not signed by anyone. It contained nodate, not even the place. Ajit Prasad Jain, a Minister andclose confidant of Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, took the sealed"Memorandum of Instructions" by air to Srinagar to bedelivered to Yuvraj Karan Singh, the Sadar-e-Riyasat(Governor) of Kashmir. Karan Singh was to dismissSheikh Mohammad Abdullah from the office of PrimeMinister of Jammu and Kashmir, and to appoint BakshiGhulam Mohammad as his successor. No further actionwas to be taken against Sheikh Abdullah unless heindulged in violent activities or instigated violence."

(My days with Nehru, p. 241)

'Jago Grahak Jago.' A PUDA employee rightly said,"corruption starts from top. We make small amount buttop people make crores and crores and nothing happensto them. They have money to pay to big vakils andJudges. We are poor fellows."

Preface 19


Quality of leaders from Indian sub-continent are such thatthey look for territory, land to grab it and not good for peopleand welfare of people living in it. It is easy for leaders tomisguide them in the name of patriotism, nationalism, religion,region, caste, Biradari etc. Those who fight against corruptionand seek justice are anti-national and terrorists? If today's youthadopts Bhagat Singh's methodology to express their displeasurewith present governance what method Govt. will take againstthem? When I was student, our elders used to tell us, "If moneyis lost, nothing is lost, if health is lost, something is lost, ifcharacter is lost, everything is lost." Now it is for politicians andpeople to assess what they have lost. Gang rapes take placebecause we have lost character. Some of our leaders and eldersare of unethical and immoral character.

I had sent my building plan to PUDA by Regd. post insteadof sending it through my architect. Those who pay extra fee andsend through architect get sanction of building plan by hand(HATHO HATH) because necessary greece money for movementof file was already given. In my case there was no response evenafter reminders dt. 10.11.06 and 10.1.07 and ultimately I hadto file complaint/petition before the Distt. Forum, Jalandhar on13.4.07. Upon notice PUDA filed reply stating therein thatbuilding plan has been sanctioned and annexed photocopy ofsanction letter dt. 20.10.06 but no copy of actual building planwas annexed. It was a news to me that the building plan hadbeen sanctioned. Had I paid the bribe the sanction plan wouldhave come to me by hand but I did commit 'criminal' act by notpaying the bribe and the sanctioned plan is not delivered to metill date and no Hon'ble forum/Court took notice of mypleadings. That Hon'ble Justice G.S. Singhvi dismissed my SLPon the ground that I had not read condition 11 of the allotmentletter. That I would like to inform reader that at no time therespondent PUDA ever raised this issue of condition 11 or themeaning of word 'moratorium' at any stage, orally or in writing.That when Babri Masjid demolition case came before Hon'ble

Preface20


Supreme Court on 9.5.2011, in first hearing itself impugnedorder was stayed on the ground that none of the party had askedfor division of the disputed site, therefore, bad in law and stayedit. In my case, perhaps they thought an individual was arguinghis case in person. Except for Distt. Forum all others repeatedlyraped justice and law and got away with it! I think that uptoNational Consumer Commission level influence of PUDA's topbrass could work. But at Supreme Court level something else hasworked, may be my two books Justice Disgraced and Pangs ofa Petitioner for Justice had to do something? These books werewritten not to downgrade the Judiciary or the legal professionbut to expose individuals who are bringing bad name to theentire Judiciary and damaging the fibre of Indian constitution,or was it at the instance of Sr. Advocate? Judiciary is one of thethree pillars of our governing system, other two being Parliament/Legislature and Executive. Media print and electronic, isconsidered very important in democracy, some call it fourthpillar. Judiciary is the last hope of any aggrieved Indian. If thishope is lost country is doomed. Guru Nanak said, RAJE SHEENMUKADAM KUTTE (Rulers are lions and Judges dogs) duringBabars regime.

Not doing justice amounts to cruelty, atrocity and to dojustice is noble but difficult, so some choose easy way out anddo injustice. To tolrate injustice is very difficult. Injustice begetsviolence. Justice G.S. Singhvi himself admitted that justiceremains an 'illusion' for millions of poor people. Justice still acynical phrase for common man: CJI (Sunday Times, 10.11.13)Some people could be most cruel at times not withstanding theirpublic stand of peace, love, justice, non violence etc. SomeJudges are after big fish. Big fish fetch big money. Small fish likeme are for eating purpose only. Just as lamb is for eating purposefor wolf. An PUDA employee told me, "Corruption starts from top(This has proved wrong in case of Dr. Manmohan Singh, he doesnot take bribe but corruption flourished under him). We lowerpeople are always scared of being caught red handed but bigpeople escape even if they are caught." He further said, "one top

Preface 21


Punjabi politician was given long stay by Supreme Court onpurely technical ground. They could have decided the case earlywhen his opponent was at the helm of political affairs. Nowitness would have turned hostile and he could have beendeclared guilty of corruption. Recently O.P. Chautala was heldguilty and jailed for 10 years." He gave another example,"Another big M.P. was held guilty by High Court for murder buthis case is pending in Supreme Court for several years. Similaris the case of a film star. Why it cannot be decided soon, afterstay is granted? If patwari, clerk, peon or constable is held guiltyfor taking bribe he is dismissed but nothing happens to IAS andIPS officers involved in corruption in crores."

I did not contest my cases for money sake alone. It wasa fight for implementation of law, against corruption andagainst injustice. All courts are created to protect law and tocurb its violation and injustice. Financially I was looser in allcases except that of addition of 5 years in pension calculationunder regulation 29 (5), which ultimately benefited over 70000VRS-2000 optees of all nationalized banks, of which details aregiven in my book, Pangs of a Petitioner for Justice.

JAZIA IN HINDUSTAN

The difficult procedure for procuring plot and constructinghouse, and delayed or no action on applications/representationof consumer breeds corruption. Consumer is asked by officialsto come again and again to office on flimsy grounds like, 'SAHIBNAHIN HAIN', 'DEALING HAND NAHIN HAI' etc. compelsharassed old person to offer money for getting job done, or orallyconsumer would be told by dealing hand or agent, 'it will costyou huge amount, I will get it done for lesser charges'.Sometimes dealing employee will flatly tell "if you do not payI will fix you and make you pay higher charges on other account",and "if you pay I will get relief and you will have to pay less."For the sake of bribe employee may put state into loss. Thestrategy is to delay the matter. Force the sufferer to meet the

Preface22


dealing hand and negotiate bribe money. In olden days Jazia waslevied from Hindus for their pilgrimage by the then rulers,Mughals. Guru Nanak said ZORI MANGE DAN VE LALO (Forcedto pay donations). Now the present days rulers are forciblytaking bribe. Then what is the difference and change frommonarchy to democracy and from slavery to freedom? Thecumbersome procedure created by the PUDA is responsible forcorruption:

After allotment of plot one has to apply for sanction ofbuilding plan through an PUDA approved architect where theoffice is located. Architect will look after interest of PUDAemployee and not yours or that of owner of plot because he hasto deal with employees daily in all other matters. He can affordto dodge an consumer but not employees. After sanction, applyfor demarcation and possession of plot at PUDA office. Thenapply for sanction of water connection and pay fee for water andsewerage connection. After starting construction apply for DPCcompletion. Then for first floor and second floor and at last forfinal completion. At every stage/step bribe is to be paid byowner/consumer/customer otherwise orally you are threatenedfor higher fines delay in all matters and completion certificate.Owner at this stage is already harassed by labour contractors ofvarious types like mason, marble, electric, plumber, carpenteretc. and above all depleting funds for construction of house andgets fed up with life itself. For completition certificate you areasked to go to approved architect. My house was complete in allrespects as per sanctioned plan, original copy of it was notdelivered to me for want of bribe. Architect arrived and inspectedthe house. It was complete in all respects but he refused to givecompletion of complete house and told me very bluntly that onlypartial certificate of one room, one bath, one kitchen would begiven. He charged me Rs 1000/- and did not give any receipt forthat, on demand he refused bluntly. This is crucial certificatebecause after this your extension fee charges are stoppedotherwise you are threatened that fee will continue to becharged. Owner has no other alternative but to apply for partial

Preface 23


completion certificate form supplied by architect but preparedby PUDA so that no further extention fee is levied. It is here thatmaximum bribe is bargained. After that partially occupationcertificate is issued by PUDA. That the last threat to owner of thehouse orally comes that no sewerage connection of the house isto be connected with main sewerage pipe otherwise Rs 15000/- would be fined. Again it is 6" or 8" pipe connection. Size of pipeis different for those who pay different bribe. God bless PUDA.Your house is ready for you to live in. But in some cases evenpartial house is not completed but certificate is issued forconsideration. There is another aspect after partial completioncertificate is issued by PUDA, owners start violation of constructionrules. PUDA keeps eyes closed for such violations. Another fee ischarged arbitrarily known as compounding fee. This is chargedeven if house is completed as per sanction plan. In my case I wascharged with Rs 2662/- and if I do not pay this I am threatenedagain of not issuing completion certificate and PUDA wouldcontinue charging extension fee. In my case no road cutting wasinvolved yet I was charged Rs. 1950/- as road cutting chargesarbitrarily. My correspondence with PUDA is reproduced toapprise readers of facts of my case. Local society leaders do notwant to interfere in corruption matters.

There has to be distinction of purchasers of plot who wantto built dwelling unit for themselves and of those purchaserswho want to sell it for profit. Central and State govts. must makesuch provision in their policies. The present policies help thosewho make profit out of purchases of plots and resell it atexorbitant rates. According to study of Technical Committeeheaded by Prof. Amitabh Kundra, New Delhi "62% of India'snew housing vacant." It reflects the Govt's skewed housingpolicy. (HT 23.9.12) Any honest person living within sourcesof his salary cannot afford to build a house at present rates ofplots sold by Govt. agencies. Therefore, taking bribe is justifiedfor employees on this ground alone! Sale/Purchase of plots,properties is one of the biggest source of black money.

Preface24


The Estate Officer,PUDA,Jalandhar city.

Sir,

Subject : Completion CertificateRef : Milkh Officer's letter dt. 11.4.2011

Milkh officer's aforesaid letter was received by me on 20.4.2011.I have following points to make for your kind consideration and reply.1. In terms of condition 12 of the allotment letter when it was

decided by the PUDA to charge extension fee and at what rate.Pl supply copy of decision.

2. That besides the condition 12 is there any other rule/regulation/law that authorized the PUDA to charge extension fee and atwhat rate.

3. That the year 2006 the charges mentioned are Rs 9107/- andfor the year 2007 the charges are Rs 9600/- and for the year2008 the charges are Rs 12000/-. Kindly inform me how andwhy the charges are increased every year when the price of theplot no. 245 remains the same.

4. That for the year 2010 charges shown are Rs 17637/-whereasin the same year I have completed the construction of my houseon plot no 245 and applied for and informed the PUDA on25.11.2010 and also submitted the application, duly signed bythe approved architect, on 23.12.2010.

This is without prejudice to my right to seek further informationon the subject matter.

With humble regards.

Yours sincerely(Baldev Singh)

245, Urban Estate,25.4.2011 Kapurthala-144601

Preface 25


The Estate Officer,PUDA, 41, Ladowali Road,Jalandhar City.

Subject : Charging of Extension fee on Plot 245, U.E. KapurthalaRefer : Your letter no. 9760 dt. 16.9.2011

Your reply is not to the point and specific. However, I seekfurther clarification/information on the following points :

1. That the Punjab Government notification dt. 9.6.2010 No 1/149/1986-4HGP/1759 is the first ever legal method of chargingextension fee under condition 12 of the allotment letter dt.1.3.2001.

2. That no other notification is supplied to me. All other 8 paperssupplied are issued by administrative officer of the PUDA whois not authorized to issue policy letters like that notification dt.9.6.2010.

3. That the charges levied before 9.6.2010 are illegal, arbitrary,therefore, liable to be refunded with interest.

4. That the cost of my plot is Rs 277500/- and extension fee shouldbe charged 2% or 2.5% as the case may be on the said amount.However, I see increase in extension fee every year. It is alsoarbitrary and illegal. Accordingly excess charged fee is refundablewith interest.

5. That there is no provision for charging extension fee for yearhouse is completed and you have charged me wrongly fee forthe year 2010 which is refundable.

19.10.2011 (Baldev Singh)2245, Urban Estate,Kapurthala-144 601

Preface26


Jalandhar Development AuthoritySCO no. 41, PUDA Complex, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar

ToSh. Baldev Singh245, Urban Estate,Kapurthala.

No. EO-JDA-SO(R)-2011/11425Dated: 13/12/2011

Subject : Charging of Extension Fees of Plot No. 245, Urban Estate,Kapurthala.

Reference : your letter dt. 19.10.2011

With reference to your letter under reference Para wise replyis given below:-

1. As per condition no. 12 of allotment letter clearly shows thatthe Extension fees can be changed from time to time asdetermined by PUDA, so this notification has been issued byGovt. of Punjab Department of Housing and Urban Development.

2. Photo copy of the notification No. 1/149/1986-4HGP/1759 dt.9.6.2010 again sent, signed by the under-signed. It is alsointimated that the detail of Ext. fees has already been suppliedto you by this office vide letter No. 9760 dt. 16.9.2011.

3. Extension fees has been charged as per PUDA Instructions/Policy.

4. The Extension fees can be charged as per Instructions/Policiesissued by PUDA from time to time.

5. The Extension fees for the year 2010 is charged, as thepermission to occupy was applied by you on 24.12.2010.

Estate Officer,JDA, Jalandhar

Preface 27


WHAT IS ON RECORD OF CASE FILE

Civil, criminal and judicial administration is carried out onvery important dictum, what is on the record of case file.Dealing person/authority first discusses orally and then placeson record or create record for decision or order in favour oragainst. In civil administration it is officer and in criminal andcivil court cases it is advocate and police officer. In civil casesofficers discuss the case with political boss and according todictates, prepare record for or against and final decision isarrived at. In criminal cases police, medical officers preparereports and then advocate gives legal shape to case andaccordingly upto Supreme Court case is decided. Those mastersin this business start efforts at police and medical level itselfto procure report/FIR according to their needs, therefore, thereis nothing impartial and truth in cases that goes upto the apexCourt, but the cases are decided what is on the record of thecase file. Rich and powerful get away with crime but poor getpunished. My colleague in bank and friend S. Ajit Singh Sekhon,who after retirement is practicing advocate at Faridkot, told me,he is taking criminal/murder cases and is charging high fee. Incourts it is all lies and lies (NIRA JHOOTH) that triumph.SATYAMEV JAYTE is our national slogan. There is proverb inPunjabi, SACHE PHANSI CHARDE DEKHE JHOOTHE MAUJURAN (honest and truthful get hanged but corrupt and liarsenjoy in life). In civil cases it is more like mathematics. Casesare decided on facts and law placed on record. But in my caseeven that privilege was denied. Arbitrary and biased orderswere passed misusing powers and immunity given under theConstitution of India. It also amounted to physical harasmentand metal agony. In a recently reported case, it came to thenotice of SC that mercy petition of Mahindera Nath Das wasfavourably ordered on September 30, 2005 by the thenPresident but this fact was not put up before his successorPresident who rejected the mercy petition in 2011." (Times ofIndia, 4.5.2013) It was same Justice G.S. Singhvi who had givenrelief to Mahindra Nath Das and had earlier rejected DPS

Preface28


Bhullar's appeal not following a five Judges Bench order. "Theright to seek commutation of a death sentence on the groundsof inordinate delay in disposing mercy petitions has beengranted by the Supreme Court's five-judge Constitution Benchin Triveniben vs State of Gurjarat in 1989. That Bench did notdeny this right to those convicted of terrorism-related offences.Therefore, observers wonder how the two-judge Bench couldoverrule a binding decision, rendered by a five-judge Bench, anddisentitle a category of prisoners, convicted under anti-terrorism laws, to their constitutional right to seek commutationof their sentences." ('Mercy Denied', V. Venkataran, Frontline,May 17, 2013) A three judges bench of SC said on 21st January,2014 that, "Rejection of Bhullar's plea wrong." (Tribune,January 22, 2014). At times individual rule can be morepowerful than rule of law. I was left to pray to God for justice.When and what God decides no body knows, very few realizeit. Some say there is no God; either tolerate injustice or fightit out. In most of the cases, as history teaches and tells us,coming generations suffer. Raja Jaichand invited MohamedGauri against his rival Prithviraj Chauhan, the starting point ofour slavery. Buddhists and their Maths were destroyed by Hindurulers. Muslims destroyed Hindu temples. Generations sufferbut we do not learn. In recent times we attacked Harimandarand destroyed Akal Takht and demolished 500 years old BabriMasjid, inviting retaliation from Sikh and Muslim youths,respectively. Destruction of religious places could be understoodwhen human was not so civilised, democratic, secular butduring these civilised and secular days it is totally vindictive.

WOLF AND LAMB STORY

The cases of petitioner-in-person are listed in the end ofdaily cause list in Supreme Court. My case alongwith others caseswas listed at Sl. No. 66 of Court No 11 comprising of Justices G.S.Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly. This Bench has been hearing mosttalked about case of 2G Spectrum involving top guns of the UPA

Preface 29


Government and private sector big players. When I learnt thatmy case is listed before this Bench I was happy for two reasons.First, I had appeared before Justice G.S. Singhvi when he was atChandigarh in High Court of Punjab and Haryana. He hadadmitted my CWP exposing scam of illegal promotions in Bank,my employer, had issued notices to executives involved in it. Ialso used to sit in his court to learn how the cases are argued byadvocates. The other Judge who inspired me was JusticeJawahar Lal Gupta, who retired as Chief Justice of Kerala HighCourt. Occasionally I used to sit in other courts also for shortwhile including that of Justice J.S. Khehar. As an Senior advocatehe was known as Jagdish Singh. When he became Judge headded Khehar with his name. As per newspaper reports he willbe first Sikh CJI. According to his own judgement he is Patit(degraded) Sikh. Second reason was that this Bench was passingharsh orders against persons involved in the scam of 2G spectrumand hoped relief in my case also. I was ready for my turn andlooking at the Hon'ble Judges when my case was called. I sawJustice G.S. Singhvi telling something in low voice to Justice A.K.Ganguly. His face had become stern and neck stiff and straight.It struck my mind instantly that something bad is going tohappen. Not-withstanding that, I started to argue my case, "MyLord, the respondent had decided three years moratorium forconstruction on plots because the infrastructure was not readyand zoning plan not approved for possession and construction ofhouses. That the National Consumer Commission dismissed mypetition on the ground that the petitioner had misunderstood themeaning of word 'moratorium' by making wrong interpretation.That the meaning of the word in Oxford Dictionary is, "atemporary prohibition of an activity" given at page no. 9 of thepaper book." That the Hon'ble Judges did not bother to openpaper book and see/read what I am arguing about. That it iscustomary for judges to look at the page and read what thepetitioner is arguing. Instead I was cut short and asked by JusticeG.S. Singhvi to read condition 11 of the allotment letter, beingan educated person, and without further hearing pre-decided

Preface30


order was dictated. That the President appoints Judges to hearand read what petitioners/litigants say and then decide. If theydon't, that is end of justice in any part of the world. Some judgesbecome egoistic about their post and position. They forget thereis Lord (God) above them.

That the para 2(b) of Questions of Law in paper bookreads,

"whether the condition No 11 of the allotment letter dt.1.3.2011 had not become non-operative by the own factof the respondent after issuing letter dt. 5.10.04 andgranting 3 years of moratorium for construction on theplot w.e.f 12.6.02 to 11.6.05 and shifted its operativeperiod of construction w.e.f. 12.6.05 to 11.6.08 and thepetitioner was entitled to commence and complete theconstruction within 3 years after 12.6.05 ?"

That read with para 5 of the RP no. 2217 of 2010 whichwas part of the SLP (C)'s paper book at page No. 54,

5. "That the State Commission has erred in ignoring thefact that after declaring moratorium for three yearsfrom 12.6.02 conditions of allotment letter No 11 and12 become non-operational by the own act of therespondent, therefore, allowing appeal on this groundis erroneous and wrong. That the delay in sanction ofzoning plan was due to the fact that infrastructure ofroads, sewerage, water pipes were not laid nor electricpolls were erected, therefore, not fit to give demarcationand possession of plots. No one could build a houseunder such circumstances. That the respondent was notin position to give demarcation and possession of plots."

That the issue/arguments were never ever raised by therespondent either in writing or orally in entire case at any stageabout conditions 11 and 12 because, "for the purpose ofconstruction in the residential plots may be taken wef. 12.6.02the date on which the zoning of this area approved thedevelopment works completed" and about the meaning of word

Preface 31


'MORATORIUM'. It was own creation of State and NationalConsumer Commissions and not based on written or oralarguments of the respondent, not heard of in the British andthe Indian jurisprudence. And finally the Hon'ble SupremeCourt put approval stamp on these judgements and dismissedmy SLP. It reminded me of short story of WOLF AND LAMBtaught in school days. When wolf wanted to eat lamb, allarguments of lamb were thrown to winds and wolf relishedeating lamb. Amongst animals it is a jungle law, survival of thefittest. But amongst human beings there is civilized society, aftersocial contract theory came into existence. (Hobbs, LockRussoue) There is civil law, there is criminal law. Aristotle, theGreek philosopher, said, "at his best, man is the noblest of allanimals, separated from law and justice he is the worst". In thiscase who is the worst?

What the respondent PUDA had to say before Distt. Forumand in first appeal before the State Consumer CommissionChandigarh are reproduced in paper book and at the end of thisbook as appendix-II, p. 40. Learned reader will notice thatnowhere these points of conditions 11 and 12 and meaning ofmoratorium were raised by the respondent yet these weregrounds of dismissals of my petitions by Hon'ble State, NationalCommissions and Supreme Court. It was like repeated rape ofjustice. In my views upto the level of National Commission,influence of the respondent could have bearing on the outcomeof judgements but at the Supreme Court level it was totallyunexpected but very dangerous for the future of Justice system,and the future of country. I respect law and judiciary butindividuals can go wrong and pass wrong orders/judgements.Some judges are accused of abuse of office to pass wrong orders.They must be exposed, come what may. They violate oath ofoffice and the Constitution.

In my letter to Hindustan Times (9.8.2011) I expressed myviews thus;

Preface32


A judge not blindfolded

I agree with Justice AK Ganguly's views as reported in"Apex Court judge says PM should come under Lokpal"(Aug 6), but he should have said that for judges too, asthey also hold public offices. When the Constitution wasframed, it was believed judges could be given completeindependence, but time has proved they are not infallible.

(Baldev Singh, via email)

Eminent jurist Fali S. Nariman said,"with a few exceptions, the higher judiciary tends tostick together when anyone speaks of wrongdoingsamongst them, even though they themselves knowthe truth"

(India Today, August 29, 2011).

There is English proverb, "Birds of same feather flytogether". In Punjabi it is said cor cor mosyry BweI (CHOR CHORMOSSARE BHAI All thieves are first cousins). Supreme court'sfull Bench decision (3 judges), presided by Justice DalveerBhandari, says,

".....most of the cases before the Consumer Forums aresmall cases of relatively poor people where legalintricacies are not involved and great legal skills are notrequired".

That non-lawyer can represent, appear and argue cases filedunder the Consumer Protection Act-1986. (Hindustan Times1.9.2011). That American, English and Australian laws permitsuch practices.

Though the world is one and same for all but life is notsame for every individual. It is excellent, good, bad and uglyfor each and every individual according to his/her circumstances.

Injustice is most dangerous misconduct of any judgecapable of destroying civil society and country inviting miseriesfor future generations.

I am not the only person who feels the pinch of injustice.Read this letter published in Hindustan Times (1.3.2013):

Preface 33


Judging the Judge

If accountability is fixed on judges for deciding casescontrary to the material evidence by misreading,misapplying, misrepresenting or over sighting recordand due action is taken, it will work like miracle toreduce the delay in getting justice and eradicatecorruption from judiciary. Judges will be bound todecide matters only on merit. A senior Jurist filed asealed affidavit in the apex court that out of 18 chiefjustices of India, 8 were corrupt definitely and theintegrity of two was not clear. Yet, litigants can appealagainst only judgement and not the judge.

(Jai Bhagwan Gupta, Chandigarh)

Another reader writes in Hindustan Times (20.3.13):

Judges above law?

The conduct of the judiciary has escaped examinationall these years. Judges misuse their immunity, a serioussetback to the independence and credibility of judiciary.Can judges be permitted to do anything in the guise ofthe 'independence of judiciary'?

(Preet Simar Johal, Jalandhar)

Thinking of Indian has been blurred by superstitions,irrational division of mankind into thousands of castes and subcastes and useless rituals in daily life. Retd. Judge of SupremeCourt and Chairman of PCI Markandey Katzu says 90% ofIndians are fools/idiots. He had not defined his own category !One Katzu from Allahabad was Cabinent Minister in Nehru'sGovt. May be he is from same family.

A person who had spent lots of money and life time onlitigation said out of frustration, "it is a business betweenadvocates and judges and not justice in most of the cases, I haveseen it with my own eyes and experience."

I have first-hand information that a private hospital ownerwanted to get his premises vacated from medicine shop owner.

Preface34


Judge hearing the case told advocate for petitioner to getmoney for favourable order. And it was paid and premises gotvacated.

For winning any case what is most important: advocate,judge or the law? Actually it should be law because any casehas to be decided in accordance with law but in practice, in mostof the cases, it is advocate, money and luck. If in any given crimemaximum punishment is ten years but actually one may get onlyfive years, minimum prescribed in law then there is possibilityof element of influence. In Ruchika molestation case maximumpunishment in law was not awarded to DGP Rathore, Rathore'swife is praticing High Court advocate. Here comes the role ofmoney and advocate. There is always cordial relationshipbetween judges and advocates, in legal terminology, Bar andBench. There is nothing wrong in it. Advocates always addressjudges as 'My Lord' and bow before them. Some even to theextent of MATHA TEKANA. And judges always refer toadvocates as 'Learned' Mr. so and so (name of the advocate injudgement). Advocates also protest, go on strike; write againstjudges to High Court or Supreme Court or the President, theP.M., the Law Minister etc. After some time there is amicablesettlement. They are most educated, civilized class of people.But every human is likely to err and they err. No country canrun without judges and advocates. Most important phrase is,"in accordance with law". But actually it is the will and whimof the judge in some cases.

In Indian sub-continent any institution or/and anyindividual can be influenced. Merit is casualty. British trainedhonest people have died. Now the local stuff totally trained inSWARAJ are in full force. Law is supreme in books only but inpractice judges are supreme. Punjabi proverb says, RAB NEREYA GHASUN. (God is powerful or fist of mighty?). Manythousands sacrificed their life for the freedom of this country.Now many will have to sacrifice to preserve it. Some may callit second freedom movement otherwise another form of slaverywill set in. Freedom is not one generation affair. Every

Preface 35


generation has to struggle for it, especially for us, who haveattained freedom after centuries of slavery.

While I was arguing, Justice G.S. Singhvi interrupted meand dictated his pre-decided order. It was in low voice to hisreader. I could hear word 'dismissed'. It is not advisable forpetitioner-in-person to take on with judges like learnedadvocates could do it. Theirs is, after all, family affair. All blackkotwalas. I could have invited contempt or costs like I wasimposed by Justice J.S. Khehar in High Court. I wanted to say'Thanks Sir' but could utter only 'thanks' and left the court room.It is worth mentioning here that Justice G.S. Singhvi alongwithother sitting 25 Judges of the High Court at Chandigarh hadgone on mass leave on April 19, 2004 against their Chief JusticeB.K. Roy. At that time our President was non- politicianintellectual person with ethical and moral values of very highcaliber. Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who had taken serious note ofit. But our President and Prime Minister are powerless beforeHigh and Supreme Court judges, according to law. OnlyParliament has power to impeach any one of them but againthat has never happened so far. When I compare Justice AltamasKabir with Justice G.S. Singhvi I find Justice Kabir to be morefrank and truthful (He had told me in open court that I havebeen writing against Judges, therefore, no intervention,dismissed. See my book Justice Disgraced), but Justice Singhviconcealed his inner feelings. It is generally believed that our firstfreedom fighter Prime Minister was honest and truthful but ifneed be could be most cunning and clever (M.O. Mathai, hisSpl Asst., in his book titled Reminiscences of the Nehru Age).Once I was sitting in the court of Justice J S Khehar when hewas at Chandigarh. He was advising young advocate, who hada case before him, that interpretation of law is very trickymatter. In next court you may have different interpretation ofsame law. Young advocate and others sitting in the court werelearning the tricks of profession. Earlier this profession waspractised by people like Mohandas Karam Chand Gandhi, MotiLal, Mohd. Ali Jinnah, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Bhim Rao Ambedkar

Preface36


and others. They had professional ethics before them but nowthe virtues of ethics, truth, honesty and justice are rarest of therare commodity in Indian sub-continent.

The order of 4.7.2011 passed by Justice G.S. Singhvi isjugglery of words. It no where says that there is no merit in thePetition but it is still dismissed. Unless in an order, it is notspecifically stated that there is no merit in petition it is deemedthat the merits of the case have not been considered by Hon'bleJudge. Why merits are not considered? If merits are notconsidered then case is disposed of and not dismissed but inthis case neither case is considered on merits nor it is disposedof. Although Justice A.K. Ganguly is signatory to this order butit was Justice G.S. Singhvi's order.

To do justice is highest virtue any judge can claim and beproud of it. But Indian history proves they are in the habit ofdoing injustice. Their centuries old social, religious structurebased on caste-system itself is based on inequality, injustice(Manu Simriti). After them Mughal/Muslim rulers also did thesame things. The decision/judgement was according to one'scaste/religion. In FIRs were and are mentioned to which caste/religion litigant belongs to. Sikh Gurus had ushered in a socialand religious revolution but they have relapsed into originalsystem and practice it in daily life. They don't do justice to poor,needy and downtrodden in Punjab.

Indians are expert in making a hero out of zero and ormaking a hero into zero. False praises, false propaganda for oragainst proves they are not of balanced mind, but cunning andcleaver. Any intellectual mind would not act in such a manner.We are unable to recognise and distinguish who is cunning,cleaver and who is intellectual. Indian had produced such amind centuries ago. His name was Chankiya Kautalya hismodern mind is Machievelli, author of The Prince. Our firstprime minister was very fond of him and named Diplomaticenclave in Delhi after him. It is known as Chankiyapuri. Beforehim Manu, the law giver, had ruled the Indian mind. It wasaccording to him, Law was enforced and justice dispensed.

Preface 37


I have appeared and argued before over 30 judges of Highand Supreme Courts but none had cut short me while I wasarguing my case. They did not interrupt me while I was arguingmy case/point. They questioned me after I had completed myargument. In this case I was cut short and order already decidedwas dictated to steno/reader. I could understand the compultion.He was defending the bastion, I was exposing, out of myexperiences and in the interest of the litigants, public and thecountry as a whole. To stand by truth is highest form of strugglein life.

'Jatha Raja Tatha Parja' is our ancient dictum. M.O. Mathaiwrites in his book that Jawahar Lal Nehru had a son from aSadhavi without marriage after becoming Prime Minister ofIndia. Rajiv Dixit said his wife had died in 1936. Why he couldnot marry again? Did not he sex with any women after that?He died of sex related disease. M.K. Gandhi asked girls to sleepnaked with him to test his sex power (brahmchariya avastha).

There is court beyond Supreme Court. The court of peopleand above all there is court of God. The will of God first. Theseperishable human beings think themselves as more powerfulwhen they misuse their authority. They are ignorant, arrogantand arbitrarion. Ignorance is bliss but for fools. Socrates dieda dissatisfied man. He was poisoned to death by the rulers ofthe day because he was speaking Truth and exposing the rulers.Since then many have been executed by cruel rulers. It willcontinue. It is the game of God. Guru Nanak calls it MAYAJAL.

I have appended my SLP and the order of 4.7.2011 so thatentire facts are available to reader. Poet of the East Alama Iqbalis oftenly quoted for his couplet SARE JAHAN SE ACHHAHINDUSTAN HAMARA but very few know or very few quote hisanother couplet which says,

Mudaten ho gayi hain ranjo gam sehte hue,Ab sharam ati hai isse watan kehte hue.

12.5.2012 Baldev Singh

Preface38


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 2217 OF 2010

(Against the order dated 19.4.10 in Appeal No. 1589/07 of theState Commission, Chandigarh)

Baldev Singh.............Petitioner(s) Vs

P.U.D.A. .............. Respondent(s)

BEFORE :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

For the Petitioner(s) : In personFor the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Nidhi Tewari, Adv.

For Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, Adv.

Dated, the 16th day of November, 2010

ORDERMs. Tewari seeks three weeks further time for filing response

which is opposed strongly by the petitioner. Subject to payment ofRs 2500/- by the respondent to the petitioner, case is adjourned to12.01.2011 for argument. Response be filed in the meantime by therespondent.

Sd/-(K.S. Gupta)

Presiding Member

Sd/-(S.K. Naik)

Member

Appendix-I

39Repeated Rape of Justice


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO 13719 OF 2011

WITH

PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

(Arising out of the final judgment and order dated 17.1.2011 passedby the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2217 of 2010)

Baldev Singh.........................PetitionerVersus

Punjab Urban & Development Authority...................Respondent

WITHI.A. No./2011 APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND

ARGUE THE MATTER IN PERSON

PAPER - BOOK(For Index Kindly see Inside)

BALDEV SINGHPETITIONER-IN-PERSON

245, URBAN ESTATE, KAPURTHALA-144601, PUNJABMOBILE NO. 09815120919

Appendix-II

40 Repeated Rape of Justice



Baldev Singh Vs. PUDA, Jalandhar (Pb.)

INDEX

Sl. Particulars of Documents Date Page

No.

1. Office Note on Limitation A

2. Listing Performa 19.4.11 A1 A2 A3

3. Synopsis with list of dates 8.4.11 B to F

4. Impugned judgement and orderDt. 17.1.11 in R.P. No. 2217/10passed by National ConsumerDisputes Redressal Commission,New Delhi 17.1.11 1 to 3

5. S.L.P (civil) with affidavit 19.4.11 4 to 17

6. ANNEXURE P-1 (letter of allotment ofplot 245, U/E) 1.3.01 18 to 24

7. ANNEXURE P-2 (PUDA policy Br.declares 3 years moratorium) 5.10.04 25

8. ANNEXURE P-3 (Petitioner applfor extension time) 12.4.05 26

9. ANNEXURE P-4 (Petitioner writes toPUDA for refund of excess 15%interest charged) 17.4.06 27

10. ANNEXURE P-5 (Petitioner applies forsanction of building plan) 22.7.06 28

11. ANNEXURE P-6 (Building planreturned by PUDA) 9.8.06 29

12. ANNEXURE P-7 (PUDA refersRs 27249/- on a/c of plot No. 245,No details given) 29.8.06 30

13. ANNEXURE P-8 (Petitioner appliesfor building plan again on prescribedform and fee of Rs 5673/-) 22.9.06 31



14. ANNEXURE P-9 (Complaint No.169/07 filed before Ld. Distt. Forum,Jalandhar) 13.4.07 32 to 34

15. ANNEXURE P-10 (PUDA's letterfor possession and demarcation) 3.8.07 35

16. ANNEXURE P-11 (Evidence of therespondent by way of affidavit) 21.8.07 36 to 41

17. ANNEXURE P-12 (Complaint No.169/07 allowed on merits by Ld.Distt. Forum) 18.9.07 42 to 44

18. ANNEXURE P-13 (PunjabSCRDC,Chandigarh allowed appeal No.1589/07 and set aside the orderDt. 18.9.07) 19.4.10 45 to 50

19. ANNEXURE P-14 (Petitioner filedR.P. No. 2217/10 before NationalCRDC, New Delhi against the orderdt. 19.4.10 in appeal No 1589/07) 2.6.10 51 to 58

20. Application to appear and argue in-Person. 19.4.11 59 & 60

21. Memo of appearance 61

Place : New Delhi

Date : April 19, 2011 Petitioner-in-person

Note : Page numbers are of paper book and not of this book.




CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO 13719 OF 2011

Baldev Singh.......................PetitionerVersus

Punjab Urban & Development Authority..................Respondent

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The petition is with time.2. The petition is barred by time and there is delay of days in filing

the same against order dated............and Application forCondonation of delay of..................days has been filed.

3. There is delay of days in refilling the petition and petition forcondonation of...................days in refilling has been filed.

DATED: 19.4.2011 BRANCH OFFICER

- A -



LISTING PROFORMA


1. Nature of the matter: Civil2. (a) Name(s) of Petitioner(s) Appellant(s): Baldev Singh

(b) e-mail ID: N/A3. (a) Name(s) of Respondent(s) PUDA

(b) e-mail ID: N/A4. Number of the case: SLP (Civil) No. of 20115. (a) Advocates for Petitioner(s): Petitioner-in-Person

(b) e-mail ID: N/A6. (a) Advocate for Respondent(s): N/A

(b) e-mail ID: N/A7. Section dealing with the matter: XVII8. Date of Impugned Order/Judgement: 17.1.20118A. Name of Hon'ble Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Jain, Presiding

Member and Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Naik, Member8B. In Land Acquisition Matters :- N/A

i) Notification/Govt. Order No. (u/s 4, 6)Dated.............issued by Centre/State: N/A

ii) Exact purpose of acquisition and village involved:8C. In civil Matters:- N/A

i) Suit No. name of Lower Court: N/ADate of Judgement:

8D. In Writ Petitions :"Catchword" of other similar matters: N/A

8E. In case of Motor Vehicle Matters:-8F. In Service Matters:

i) Relevant Service Rule, if any: N/Aii) G.O./Circular/Notification, if applicable or in question :N/A

8G. In Labour Industrial Disputes Matters:-i) I.D. Reference/Award No. applicable:

9. Nature of Urgency: Prayer for Interim Relief10. In case it is a Tax Matter: N/A

Tax amount involved in the matter: N/AWhether a reference statement of the case was called for rejected:N/A

- A1 -



(c) whether similar tax matters of same parties filed earlier (may befor earlier/other Assessment Year): N/A

(d) Exemption Notification/Circular No.11. Valuation of the matter: N/A12. Classification of the matter: N/A

(Please fill up the number and name of relevant category withsub category as per the list circulated):No. of Sub-category with full name: 38No. of Sub-category with full name: Matter relating to ConsumerProtection.

13. Title of the Act involved (Central/State): Consumer Protection Act,1986.

14. (a) Sub Classification (Indicate Section/Article of the statue): N/A(b) Sub-section involved: N/A(c) Title of the Rules involved: N/A(d) Sub-Classification (Indicate Rule/Sub-Rule of the statue) : N/A

15. Point of law and question of law raised in the case: Whether thecondition No. 12 of allotment letter dt. 1.3.2001 is not bindingon the respondent to declare and inform the petitioner that whenit was decided to levy the extension charges/fee and how muchand at what rate?

16. Whether matter is not to be listed before any Hon'ble Judge?Mention the name of the Hon'ble Judge: N/A

17. Particulars of identical/similar case or cases, if any,a) Pending cases: N/Ab) Decided cases with citation: N/A

17A. Was S.L.P./Appeal/Writ filed against same impugned judgement/order earlier? If yes, particulars:

18. Whether the Petition is against interlocutory/final order/decreein the case: Final Order

19. If it is a fresh matter please state the name of the High court andthe coram in the impugned judgement/order ? National ConsumerDisputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

20. If the matter was already listed in this Court: N/Ai) When was it listed ? N/Aii) What was the Coram ? N/Aiii) What was the direction of the Court ? N/A

21. Whether a date has already been fixed either by Court on being

- A2 -



mentioned, for hearing of the matter ? If so please indicate thedate fixed ? N/A

22. Is there a caveator ? If so, whether a notice has been issued tohim ? N/A

23. Whether date entered in the computer ? N/A24. If it is a criminal matter, please state: N/A

i) Whether accused has surrendered: N/Aii) Nature of offence, i.e. convicted i.e. under section with Act:

N/Aiii) Sentence awarded: N/Aiv) Sentence already undergone by the accused: N/A

24.(e) i) FIR/RC/etcDate of Registration of FIR etc: N/ACrime No. N/AName and Place of the Police Station: N/A

ii) Name and Place of Trial Court: N/ACase No. in Trial Court and Date of Judgement:

iii) Name and Place of 1st Appellate Court: Punjab StateConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, ChandigarhCase No. in 1st Appellate Court and date of judgement:Appeal No. 1589 of 2007 Dt. 19.4.2010.

BALDEV SINGHDate: 19/4/2011 PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

- A3 -



BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE

That the petitioner is preferring the present Special LeavePetition (Civil) against the final order/judgement dated 17th January,2011 by the Division Member Bench of Hon'ble National ConsumerDisputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the matter of RevisionPetition no. 2217 of 2010 titled Baldev Singh versus PUDA whereinthe Bench has erroneously and wrongly interpreted the meaning ofword "moratorium", has erred and ignored the averment of thepetitioner as to charging of 15% interest on housing instalments wasarbitrary and illegal, erred in ignoring the arguments of the petitionerthat sanctioned plan of the plot No. 245, Urban Estate, Kapurthalais not delivered to the petitioner, therefore, possession and constructioncould not be taken up, has erred and ignored the averment that threeyears moratorium period was not informed to the petitioner, has erredand ignored that no demand notice was ever issued to the petitionerfor the recovery of extension fee that the extension fee was deductedfrom refundable amount without any information/details given to thepetitioner. That the respondent has erred in law and in mathematicalcalculation of three years moratorium period w.e.f. 12.6.2002.

That the petitioner was allotted a 150 sq. yds plot in UrbanEstate, Kapurthala through draw of lots in the year 2000 and issueda allotment letter dt. 1.3.2001. That 15% interest was charged oninstalments to be deposited by the petitioner and conditions 11 and12 were imposed arbitrarily for taking possession and construction ofthe plot. That the infrastructure like sewerage, water supply, roads,electric supply were not provided in the proposed PUDA colony,Kapurthala.

That the Policy Branch, Mohali of the respondent issued a letterdt. 5.10.04 wherein it was stated that

"it has been decided that 3 years moratorium period for thepurpose of construction in the residential plots may be takenw.e.f. 12.6.02 the date on which the zoning of this areaapproved and development works completed".

That this important decision was not informed to the petitioner.That the petitioner applied for extension of construction period

on the plot No 245 on 12.4.05. No demand notice for extension fee

- B -



was ever sent to the petitioner by the respondent. Meanwhile, thepetitioner had deposited complete instalments with 15% and got "NoDue Certificate" dt. 1.12.04 from the respondent. Petitioner appliedfor building plan for construction of house on plot No 245 on 22.7.06first time and applied again on 22.9.06 but no sanction was receivedby me. That the petitioner received a refund of Rs 27249/- in responseto his representation dt 17.4.06 but no details were given by therespondent.

That after sending REGD reminders dated 10.11.06 and 10.1.07and getting no reply the petitioner filed complaint/petition. BeforeHon'ble Distt. Forum, Jalandhar on following grounds :

"1. Refund of balance amount with 15% interest on dueamount from due date on instalments of plot No. 245, UrbanEstate, Kapurthala and

2. Sanction of building plan on plot No. 245 submitted on22.9.06 with Bank Draft for Rs 5673/-"

That the Complaint No. 169/07 was allowed on merits byHon'ble Distt. Forum on 18.9.07. That the respondent filed FirstAppeal in Hon'ble State C.D.R. Commission, Pb., Chandigarh, No.1589/07 which was decided on 19.4.10. It set aside the order passedby the Distt. Forum. Therefore, the petitioner filed an Revision PetitionNo. 2217/10 in Hon'ble National C.D.R. Commission, New Delhi. Thatthe National Commission passed the following order on 12.7.2010:-

"Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person. Accordingto him, when the respondent authority itself granted amoratorium for the construction of a house for a periodof 3 years from 12.6.2002 to 11.6.2005, there was noquestion of the authorities charging extension fee for theyear 2005 and 2006. By virtue of the moratorium, thepetitioner complainant was entitled to commence theconstruction within 3 years after 12.6.2005.

The point raised by the petitioner needs consideration.Issue notice to the respondent returnable on 21.9.2010.Meanwhile, operation of the impugned order is stayed."

That the respondent did not file any reply/written statement tothe notice issued by the NCDRC, New Delhi. That the final arguments

- C -



took place on 12.1.2011 and the final judgement and order passedon 17.1.2011 and the copy of the order was delivered to the petitionerby REGD. post on 9.2.2011. That it dismissed the R.P.No. 2217/2010on the ground that the petitioner misunderstood the meaning of theword 'moratorium', quoting Oxford Dictionary. That the Hon'bleNational Commission, New Delhi has erred and made own wronginterpretation of the word moratorium. Hence, this S.L.P (Civil) beforethis Hon'ble Court.

- D -



LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

Date Particulars Page

1.3.2001 Letter of allotment of Plot No. 245,Urban Estate, ANNEXURE P-1 18 to 24

5.10.04 PUDA policy Br. Declares 3 yearsMoratorium, ANNEXURE P-2 25

1.12.04 PUDA issued 'No Due Certificate'

12.4.05 Petitioner applies for Extension time.ANNEXURE P-3 26

17.4.06 Petitioner writes to PUDA for refund ofexcess 15% interest charged.ANNEXURE P-4 27

26.6.06 Petitioner sends reminder to PUDA

22.7.06 Petitioner applies for sanction of buildingplan. ANNEXURE P-5 28

9.8.06 Building plan returned by PUDAANNEXURE P-6. 29

29.8.06 PUDA refunds 27249/- on a/c of plotNo. 245. No details given. ANNEXURE P-7 30

22.9.06 Petitioner applies for building plan again onprescribed form and fee of Rs. 5673/-ANNEXURE P-8 31

10.11.06 Petitioner sends regd. reminder for sanctionof building plan.

10.1.07 Petitioner sends another reminder and alsoreminds of violation of CPA-06.

13.4.07 Complaint No. 169/7 filed before Ld. Distt.Forum, Jalandhar. ANNEXURE P-9 32 to 34

12.6.07 Reply to notice filed by the Respondent.

5.7.07 Replication by way of affidavit filed by thepetitioner u/s 151 of CPC.

3.8.07 PUDA's letter for possession and demarcationANNEXURE P-10 35

- E -



21.8.07 Evidence of respondent by way of affidavit.ANNEXURE P-11 36 to 41

18.9.07 Complaint No. 169/07 allowed on meritsby Ld. Distt. Forum. ANNEXURE P-12 42 to 44

7.12.07 PUDA filed First Appeal No. 1589/07before Punjab SCRDS, Chandigarh.

10.3.08 Petitioner (Respondent) in Appeal No1589/07 filed written statement u/s151 of the CPC.

19.4.10 Punjab SCRDC, Chandigarh allowed appealNo. 1589/07 and set aside the orderdt. 18.9.07 ANNEXURE P-13 45 to 50

2.6.10 Petitioner filed R.P.No. 2217/10 beforeNational CDRC, New Delhi against theorder Dt. 19.4.10 in Appeal No. 1589/07.ANNEXURE P-14 51 to 58

12.7.10 After hearing notice issued to therespondent and the impugned orderdt. 19.4.10 in Appeal No. 1589/07was stayed.

12.1.11 Respondent did not file any reply to thenotice. Final arguments took place.Order reserved.

17.1.11 That the Revision Petitioner No. 2217/10was dismissed on the ground ofwrong interpretation of word 'moratorium'.

19.4.11 Hence, this special Leave petition (Civil)before this Hon'ble Court.

Note : Page numbers are of paper book and not of this book.

- F -



NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 2217 OF 2010

[Against the order dated 19-4-2010 in Appeal No. 1589/2007 of thePunjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh]

Baldev Singh, 853, Urban Estate,Kapurthala-144 601.........................Petitioner

VERSUS

Punjab Urban & Development Authority (PUDA),Through Estate Officer,SCO 41, Ladowali road,

Jalandhar City (Punjab)..................Respondent

Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

Appearance:For the Petitioner : In-PersonFor the Respondent : Ms. Nidhi Tiwari, Advocate.

Pronounced on : 17th of January, 2011

ORDERPER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

Petitioner/complainant had made two allegations against therespondent, Punjab Urban & Development Authority (PUDA) beforethe District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (theDistrict Forum for short). His first charge was that for a plot allottedto him in Kapurthala Urban Estate during 2001 even though he hadpaid the instalment according to the schedule and the respondent/opposite party/PUDA had declared one year moratorium on depositof instalments, he has been wrongly charged 15% interest on theinstalments. His second grouse was that the respondent/oppositeparty/PUDA has imposed extension fee for non-construction for the

- 1 -



years 2005-2006 despite the fact that the respondent/opposite party/PUDA itself vide their circular dated 5th of October, 2004 had granteda moratorium for a period of three years for the purpose ofconstruction w.e.f 12th of June, 2002 the date on which the zoningof this area was approved.

When the complaint was pending before the District Forum, therespondent/opposite party/PUDA agreed to refund the excess amountrecovered from the complainant on the instalments paid by him butadjusted an amount of Rs. 13,539/- from out of the excess amountas extension fee for the years 2005 and 2006. The District Forum,therefore, considered as to whether the respondent/opposite party/PUDA was entitled to levy any extension fee non-construction for theyears 2005 and 2006 and vide their order dated 18th of September,2007 allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/oppositeparty/PUDA not to charge any extension fee till demarcation iscompleted and possession is given to the complainant. It also directedthe respondent/opposite party to pay Rs. 13,539/- to the complainantwith 9% interest from 24th of April, 2006 to till payment. It furtherawarded a cost of Rs. 3,000/-.

The order of the District Forum was challenged before thePunjab State Consumer Disputes Redressed Commission, (the StateCommission for short), who vide the impugned order has set asidethe order of the District Forum; thereby dismissing the complaint.This has necessitated the complainant to file this revision petitionbefore us seeking setting aside of the order passed by the StateCommission.

The short point for consideration is as to whether on the faceof the policy decision taken by the respondent/opposite party/PUDAvide their circular dated 5th of October, 2004 specifically on thesubject of charge of extension fee for residential plots in KapurthalaUrban Estate, wherein it was decided to grant three yearsmoratorium period for the purpose of construction w.e.f. 12th ofJune, 2002; they could charge the extension fee for non-constructionfor the years 2005 and 2006. It appears that the petitioner/complainant has misunderstood the meaning of moratorium. Themeaning of the word 'moratorium' as per Oxford English Dictionaryis "a legal authorization to debtors to postpone payment". No doubtthe respondent/opposite party/PUDA had provided a moratorium

- 2 -



period of three years w.e.f. 12th of June, 2002. In this case thedecision of the respondent/opposite party/PUDA can only beinterpreted to mean that allottees were not required to pay extensionfee/charge, if they were liable to pay, during the period 12th of June,2002 to 11th June, 2005. The moratorium did not mean waiver ofthe extension fee. It is not disputed that the petitioner/complainantthough was allotted the plot had initiated action for construction ofthe house on 22nd of June, 2006 by submitting the building plan forapproval. Thus, the petitioner/complainant has to be held to have notcomplied with the terms and condition of the allotment and therespondent/opposite party/PUDA has rightly levied the extension fee.

Thus, we do not find any illegality, irregularly or jurisdictionalerror in the order passed by the State Commission and the revisionpetition, accordingly, is dismissed with no order as to cost.

(R.C. JAIN, J.)PRESIDING MEMBER

(S.K. NAIK)Mukesh MEMBER

True copyPetitioner

- 3 -




ORDER XVI RULE 4 (1) (A)

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

(A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13719 of 2011

(Against the judgement and final order dt. 17.1.2011 passed byHon'ble Division Member Bench of the National Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2217/2010)

WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEFBETWEEN

Position of parties in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission.

Baldev Singh,245, Urban Estate,Kapurthala 144 601 Petitioner Petitioner

Versus

Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority,Through Estate Officer,41, Ladowali Road,Jalandhar (Pb.) Respondent Respondent

- 4 -



ToThe Hon'ble Chief Justice of IndiaAnd His Companion Judges of theSupreme Court of India,New Delhi.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE ABOVE NAMED PETITIONER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present Special Leave Petition (Civil) is being preferredby the petitioner herein against the impugned final judgement andorder dt. 17.1.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Division Member Bench ofthe National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi inRevision Petition No 2217 of 2010 whereby the Hon'ble NationalConsumer Commission has erroneously and wrongly dismissed thepetition by making wrong interpretation of 'moratorium for construction'and mathematical calculation, by ignoring the material vital issue of15% interest charged on housing instalments and non delivery ofsanction plan of building construction submitted to the respondentalongwith the fee of Rs 5673/- and deducting extension fee for theyears 2005 and 2006 without any demand notice. That the importantdecision of 3 years of moratorium from 12.6.2002 was not informedto the petitioner by the respondent.

That the petitioner is senior citizen of India, his date of birthbeing 12.12.1944, is competent to file the SLP (Civil) under Article136 of the constitution of India against the impugned judgement andfinal order of 17th January, 2011.

Question of law:

2. That the following questions of law arises for the kindconsideration of this Hon'ble Court :

a) Whether the decision of the respondent in granting 3 yearsmoratorium for construction on the plots, vide their policyletter dt. 5.10.04 (annexure P-2), w.e.f. 12.6.02 to 11.6.05is not binding on the respondent to honour it and to denyany consequential effects is not illegal and arbitrary?

b) Whether the condition No 11 of the allotment letter dt.1.3.2001 had not become non-operative by the own act of

- 5-6 -



the respondent after issuing letter dt. 5.10.04 and granting3 years moratorium for construction on the plot w.e.f.12.6.02 to 11.6.05 and shifted its operative period ofconstruction w.e.f. 12.6.05 to 11.6.08 and the petitionerwas entitled to commence and complete the constructionwithin 3 years after 12.6.2005?

c) Whether the condition No. 12 of allotment letter dt. 1.3.01is not binding on the respondent to declare and inform thepetitioner that when it was decided to levy the extensioncharges/fee and how much and at what rate?

d) Whether it is not legally mandatory to issue demand noticeto the petitioner for charging extension fee before chargingsuch an fee?

e) Whether it is not arbitrary and illegal to deduct fee for