“Centre for Investigation & Prosecution of Corrupt Judges of India”
A initiative by ‘Of The People, By The People & For The People’
No. 452, 15th Cross, Lakkasandra, Bangalore-560 030
Email: <firstname.lastname@example.org>. Cell: +91 98866 19410
[Back drop: The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 = Bill Text ,
PRS Legislative Brief , PRS Standing Comm Report Summary ] [ General ]
Date: … September, 2012.
1] THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE- 560 001.
THROUGH: The Hon’ble Chief Justice Shri.Vikramajit Sen, THE DISCIPLINING AUTHORITY.
2] Mr. Pranab Mukerjee,
The Hon’ble President of India, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi.
3] Mr. Manmohan Singh,
The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, Prime Ministers Office, South Block, New Delhi.
4] Mr. Salman Khurshid, Hon’ble Minister for Law and Justice,
Ministry of Law, Justice and Legal Affairs, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
5] Mr. H.R. Bharadwaj, His Excellency The Governor of Karnataka, Bangalore.
6] Mr. R. Ashok, Hon’ble Minister for Home Affairs, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.
7] Mr. Lal Rukuma Pachau, The Director General & Inspector General of Police of Karnataka, Bangalore-560 001.
8] Mr. B.G Jyothi Prakash Mirji, The Police Commissioner, Bangalore
9] Mr. Nagalingangoud patil, The ACMM Court-VIII, CMM Court Complex, Bangalore
THE MOST HUMBLE COMPLAINT:
Subject: Mal administration of JUSTICE by 500 plus, employees cum Judges who are under control of Karnataka High court, Bangalore; by virtue of ILR 1995 KAR 3139 employees cum Judges who are members of Karnataka Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited”, have committed in their personal capacity grave crimes such as Perjury, obstruction of Justice, frauds, Cheating, Forgery, Misrepresentation to Courts, Framing as incorrect Document as documents etc., bringing dis-repute to Indian Judiciary.
Reference: Supreme Court Judgment of 11th September, 2012 [ Read More]: ” The media, in several cases in India, is the only representative of the public to bring to the notice of the court issues of public importance including governance deficit, corruption, drawbacks in the system”.
The grave Crimes committed punishable under:  Indian Penal Code Chapters IX, X, XI, XIV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, r/w Section 34. The Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984  The Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Goondas, Immoral, Slum Grabbers Act, 1985.  Criminal Contempt of various judgments
- In ILR 1995 KAR 3139, while 23 Sitting Karnataka High Court were Respondents [ Read More], the Judgment observed “Judicial Layout formed by KSJDEHBCS in 156 Acres is approved by Bangalore Development Authority in 1992. Judgment further reads as follow:
28: The Supreme Court has clearly laid down in tLR 1995 KAR 1962 posing the question as follows:
“Whether in view of the definition of ‘public purpose’ introduced by the Amending Act 68 of 1984 in Section 3(f)(vi) it is open to the appropriate Government to acquire land for Co-operative Society for Housing Scheme without making proper enquiry about the members of the Society and without putting such Housing Co-operative Society to term in respect of nature of construction, the area to be allotted to members & restrictions on transfer thereof ? The Supreme Court has held at page 1978 (para 21) as follows:
“… Inspite of the repeated querry, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Society could not point out or produce any order of the State Government under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act granting prior approval and prescribing conditions and restrictions in respect of the use of the lands which were to be acquired for a public purpose. There is ho restriction or bar on the part of the appellant Society on carrying out the size of the plots of the manner of allotment or in respect of construction over the same. That is why the framers of the Act have required the appropriate Government to grant prior approval of any Housing Scheme presented by any co-operative Society before the lands are acquired treating such requirement and acquisition for public purpose. It is incumbent on part of the appropriate Government while granting approval to examine different aspects of the matter so that it may serve the public interest and not the interest of few who can as well afford to acquire such lands by negotiation in open market. According to us, the State Government has not granted the prior approval in terms of Section 3(f) (vi) of the Act to the Housing Scheme in question. The power under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act has been exercised for extraneous consideration and at the instance of the persons, who had no role in the decision making process-whether the acquisition of the lands in question shall be for a public purpose. This itself is enough to vitiate the whole acquisition proceeding and render the same as invalid.”
29. We have to hold that the acquisition is bad in law in view of the fact that no prior approval of the Government has been obtained as contemplated under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Land Acquisition Act and the procedure laid down in Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act has not been followed so far as this petitioner is concerned. It is not the case of the State that the procedure laid down under Part-VII of the Act has been followed in this case or prior approval as contemplated under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act has been obtained by the Society. Even though we have accepted the contention of Mr. A.K.-Subbaiah the learned Counsel, in law, the Writ Petition has to fail on the ground of laches, delay and conduct of the petitioners. We are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.
30. Though we have held that the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated for non-compliance of Section 3(f)(vi), We think it is necessary to deal with the other questions raised before us also. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that allotment of sites to Judges are not correct and that the very presence of Judges as members of the Society vitiates the acquisition. Some allegations are made in the Petition that certain Judges have given false declaration. We have gone through the applications of the Judges who have become members of the Society. There is no column at all in the Application Form given to the High Court Judges who have become members of the Society asking whether he (Member) or any member of his family owns a house of site in Bangalore City. At the same time it is to be noted that such a column appears in the case of the Application Forms given to the members in the Subordinate Judiciary and there is also a declaration to be furnished. It is true two sets of Application Forms are used. As such, the allegations that Judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court (sitting, retired and transferred) have given false declaration is absolutely baseless and it has been made in a reckless manner by the petitioners concerned. It has to be seen from the list furnished to us that certain members of the Subordinate Judiciary who became members of the Society have been later elevated to the High Court.
31. With regard to the allotment of sites to Judges, as We have stated above, We are of the opinion that this Court sitting in Article 226 of the Constitution cannot go into that question. It is settled law that no Writ will lie against a Co-operative Society as it is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Clause-7 of the Bye-laws produced before us, as translated by the official translator, reads as follows:
“7. ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP :
Persons residing in Bangalore and interested in the development of this institution or those persons who are working in High Court or any Court coming under the jurisdiction of High Court, Bangalore and Society and the persons retired from the service and residing in the jurisdiction of the Society permanently (including Judges also) are eligible for the membership. Executive Committee (Panchayataru) is having full powers to accept or reject the applications received for membership.”
A reading of Clause-7 of the Byelaws, in our view, by no stretch of imagination can include the Judges of High Court or Supreme Court (sitting, transferred, retired). Even assuming for a moment that certain Judges have been allowed to become members of the Society, it may be an irregularity in the conduct of the business of the Society. It is settled law, as we have already stated, that even though the allotment is made contrary to the Byelaws, this Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as no Writ will lie against a Co-operative Society. Even otherwise if two views are possible on the construction of Clause-7 of the Byelaws, as held by the Supreme Court in , it is only for the guidance of the Co-operative Societies and it is not a law so that this Court can set aside the allotment made to the Judges, as contended by the petitioners.
32A] A feeble argument is advanced that except a few respondents Judges others have not filed counter affidavits and as such this Court should allow the Writ Petitions against such respondents as the allegations made in the Writ Petitions are not denied by way of filing Statement of Objections. We do not think it so. When reckless allegations are made without any basis, We do not think, considering the office the respondents are holding they are expected to, file Statement of Objections especially in a case where bald and false allegations are made. In fact we have gone through the applications filed by each Judge and we do not find any false declaration made as it is not required in the Form prescribed, by the Society.
33. Lastly we are constrained to observe above the serious allegations made against the Judges of this Court (sitting, retired, transferred) and retired Judges of the Supreme Court in the Public Interest Litigation filed by the two Practising Advocates of this Bar. In the case reported in P. PERUMAL AND ORS. v.. STATE OF TAMILNADU AND ORS 1993-2 LW 681. at page 712 at para 41 Mishra, J., as he then was has stated thus:
“41. In a nutshell, it will be no exaggeration if it is said that the High Court Judges are high dignitaries, who by virtue of their office and the nature of work, that is to say, dispensation of justice, exercise a regal or sovereign function; their work forms part of Constitutional duty of the State and they discharge inalienable functions of the Constitutional Government, which no one else is entitled to perform. They are to be faithful and true to the duties of their office and to function without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and act only to uphold the constitution and the laws framed thereunder. They have to be aloof to some extent from others. These and other acts which Judges perform make them the object of regard and respect of others. Their functions as demanded by their office make them important for the Society.”
- The list of regular members of Karnataka Judicial Department Emp HBCS as in 2005 or so consists of 3283 enclosed as Ann-00. Out of this list this complainant has segregated list of ” Karnataka High Court’s Section officers, Court Officers, Judgment Writers, Assistant Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Registrars, Registrar Generals, Lower Court Judges, District Court Judges, High Court and Supreme Court sitting retired judges which sums upto 500 plus as per innocent knowledge of Complainant” which is Annexed as Ann-00 [ Read More ].
- Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Bench of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULYwhile hearing C.A. NO(s). 7425-7426 OF 2002 Bangalore City COOP HSG.Socty.Ltd called for information of Karnataka Judicial Department Emp HBCS, through Karnataka Government. Same came to be filed by Karnataka Govt. On 27/04/2010 relating to Additional information relating to Karnataka State Judicial Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd., Bangalore”:
6. Bye-laws copy of Karnataka State Judicial Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd., Bangalore.
7. Whether Judges can become members of this Society.
8. How many Judges have become Members of this Society
9. Whether the Judges who were allotted sites have disposed off similar land acquisition matters where agents were involved ?
10. Whether any litigation is pending in respect of Judicial employee Society.
- On Feb 2, 2012 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Bench of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY delivered the Judgment “Bangalore City COOP HSG.Socty.Ltd [ Read More ]”. Supreme Court Judgment directed the “Lands acuired to be returned to erstwhile land owners” , quashing Land Acquisition proceedings of Bangalore City COOP HSG.Socty.Ltd. Held Bad in Law of eleven Judgments including ILR 1995 KAR 3139 Judgment Vis-avis KSJDEHBCS. The Hon’ble Bench made the observations:
30. The stage has now reached for taking note of the orders passed by the High Court and this Court in other cases as also the judgment in Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha v. Narayanamma (2003) 1 SCC 228, which have been relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the appellant in support of their argument that the H.M.T.’s case has not been followed in other similar cases. We have also taken note of some other orders, copies of which have been produced by the appellant.(ii) Writ Petition No. 35837/1994 – Subramani and others v. the Union of India and others and batch, in which large number of Judges of (sitting and retired) were impleaded as party respondents was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court – Subramani v. Union of India ILR 1995 KAR 3139. The Division Bench rejected the plea that the acquisition of land for Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees’ House Building Cooperative Society was vitiated because the middlemen were responsible for the acquisition of land as had happened in H.M.T.’s case. The Division Bench noted that the terms of the agreement entered into between the Society and M/s. Devatha Builders was not for the acquisition of land but only for development of the acquired land. The Division Bench also noted that the agreement was entered into between the Society and the owners in 1985, whereas the Government gave approval for acquisition in 1985 and the agreement with the developer was of 1986. The Division Bench also noted that no stranger had been inducted as a member of the society. However, the acquisition which was under challenge in Writ Petition No.28707 of 1995 was declared illegal because the concerned House Building Cooperative Society has not framed any housing scheme and obtained approval thereof from the State Government. The Division Bench also expressed the view that remedy under Article 226 was discretionary and it was not inclined to nullify the acquisition made for the society because the petitioners had approached the Court after long lapse of time and there was no explanation for the delay.
- In WP.PIL 7105/2007 Three retired judges of Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court state that they are bonafide members of the said Society. Stating that “There are too many skeletons in the closet, Judicial Layout become above Rule of Law etc. ” insist C.B.I. investigations”. [Ann-00 ].
- 2004: Karnataka Lokayukta slaps case against Mote & Family
- 2011: Lokaukta PRO slaps fictitious case against this editor in October, 2011. Worst part the Judge hearing Mr. Nagalinganagouda Patil, happens to be Member, is Framing charges against “that November News .. .. CJI Speech ” ‘Plot Thickens ” “Judges too got Sites”. Judge failed to “recuse” nor did he mention he is “Member of this tainted Notorious Society”.
- Ref. 01: Hon’ble CJI Speech of November 25, 2012 as reported by P.T.I appeared in Greater Kashmir. [Read More ]
- Ref 02: Hon’ble CJI Speech of November 25, 2012 as appearing in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India website. [Read More ]
- 1990: Then Hon’ble CJI sent SC Judge V.Ramaswami on leave [ CJI Speech Read More ] [ Impeachment of V. Ramaswami & Allied matters: Read Full ].
- Andhra High Court dismisses Bail Petition of CBI Judge.
- Rs. 15 Lakh Cash-at-Door Scam; HC dismisses her Petition to Strike Down F.I.R
- Ref. 03: “Plot Thickens, My Lord” DNA FULL PAGE News Article ; Dated .. Nov, 2011.
- Ref. 04: “The Judges With Plots”DNA News. Dated .. Nov, 2011.
- Ref. 05:A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Gurumoorthy v. The Accountant General, Assam and Nagaland and Ors.[ Read More ]
- Ref. 06: A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. Etc., v. L.V.A. Dikshitulu and Ors. , [Read More ]
- Ref. 07: Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal and Anr. ,
- Ref. 07:P.L. Lakhanpal v. Ajithnath Ray, Chief Justice of India, New Delhi and Ors. ,[ Judgment available in net search ] a full Bench of the Delhi High Court
- Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. v. Union Of India and Anr. 2006 AIR SCW 494 [ Read More ]
- Karnataka Joint Legislature Comittee Report-II in July 2007. Forefeit Jud Layout. Initiate Criminal Prosecution. Jud EHBCS.31.Pages.pdf[Read More]
- 28.June.07.CM.PrlSecyToInitaiteActionOnLegReportLtrTo.UD.BDA.8(4 Pages).pdf
- Karnataka Judicial Department Emp HBCS: Byelaws.
[A] In WP.PIL. 7105/2007 :Annexure –B : Original Bye laws of Respondent No. 1 : 54-76.Annexure C: Modified bye laws of the Respondent No.1: 77-105.
[B] Bye-laws in 13261/2006. Pages 65 to 107 of Part-III Annexures ‘A’ to ‘H’. Pages 118 ].
- HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Judgment ILR 1994 KAR 2115
- HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Judgment ILR 1995 KAR 3139
- ILR 1995 KAR 3139 Epithet On Epitaph of Indian Judiciary
[All Past Judgments are Fraud Vs 867 Judges]
- The Hon’ble Lokayukta legalized “Fraud, Corruption, Land Grabbing of 867 Judges [A] [Lokayukta Website: LokAyuktaLegalized867JudgesCorruption.LandGrabbing.Anarchy] . [B] WP.15101/2001 [Read More].
- In The HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ; pending PILs against
“Karnataka Judicial Department Emp HBCS”
- WP. PIL. 40994/2002 [ Read More]
- WP. PIL.13261/2006. Two High Court Judges Claim they are Employees of Hon’ble High Court [Read More: Scanned in Three Parts. Part-1: Index, Synopsis Pages 6. Part-II Writ Petition. 23 Pages . Part-III Annexures ‘A’ to ‘H’. Pages 118 . ]
- WP.PIL. 7105/2007. One Supreme Court Judge & Two High Court Judges Claim they are Employees of Hon’ble High Court. Justice G.P. Shivaprakash petitions along with Two more Judge-Employee-Beneficiary Petitioners; claim “Judicial Layout is Above Law. There are many Skeletons in Closet. Seek CBI Investigations.