IN THE COURT OF VIII TH A.C.M.M AT BANGALORE
C.C. No. 6711 of 2012
Complainant : State by Vidhana Soudha Police
Vs.
Applicant / Accused: Digvijay Mote
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 479 R/W 407 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
The Applicant Digvijay Mote respectfully submits as follows:
-
Applicant is served with chargesheet u/s Sec. 341, 504 and 506 of IPC. The I.O of the case has submitted in the Charge Sheet submitted to this Court Pages 52 to 104 which are transcripts from Two websites http://www.judgesplot4plot.com & www.indiancorruptjudges.com . The I.O has also submitted few pages from my youtube.com accounts where I have up-loaded Videos; directly or indirectly connected with contents of my websites and the affairs of “Karnataka Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Karnataka High Court, Bangalore”. For brevity here after termed as “Karnataka Employees HBCS”. CDs also contain video clips of applicant’s live interview with Karnataka Lokayukta Justice Santosh Hegde in 2007; which was facilitated by complainant Syed Riaz.
-
Introduction to Applicant’s websites http://www.judgesplot4plot.com & www.indiancorruptjudges.com: are based on LOKAYUKTA INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION:-
[1] Upa Lokayukta G.P. Shivaprakash suo moto commenced investigations vide Complaint No. Compt//UpLok/BCD/64/1999 on 4/12/1999 against “SHIVALINGAIAH, PRESIDENT, KAR.STATE JUDL. DEPT.EMP.HOUSE BLGD.CO-OP.SOCIETY, BANGALORE” under heading “IRREGULARITIES, NEPOTISM AND CORRUPT ACTIVITIES IN ALLOT MENT OF SITES”.
[2] Up-Lokayukta wrote letter on 6th September, 1999 to B.D.A asking “whether JUDICIAL Layout is Approved by B.D.A and whether B.D.A has handed over Layout to C.M.C, Yelahanka”. As per our Investigations B.D.A replied to Up Lokayukta’s letter on 8th October, 1999 stating “ Neither B.D.A has approved JUDICIAL Layout Plan nor B.D.A has passed any Order to Hand-over JUDICIAL Layout to C.M.C, Yelahanka”.
[3] After retirement of G.P. Shivaprakash, Justice N. Venkatachala was appointed as Karnataka Lokayukta. He instead of passing Orders as per Lokayukta Act or handing over Investigations to C.B.I chose to keep it pending like DEAD BODY in MORTUARY till in 2007; though G.P. Shivaprakash closed the case on 13th March, 2002 . It may kindly be noted that both G.P. Shivaprakash and Justice N. Venkatachala Karnataka Lokayukta were and are Allottees of sites in JUDICIAL Layout apart from all three present Lokayukta & two Upa Lokayuktas, per credible information.
[3.A] Upa Lokayukta was investigating inter alia whether Karnataka Employees HBCS which has secured more than few dozen Judgments from Karnataka High Court and Lower Courts till date to form three Layouts, more particularly JUDICIAL LAYOUT formed in 156 Acres or 193 Acres are bonafide or by Fraud. Few of prominent Judgments are ILR 1994 KAR 2115, ILR 1995 KAR 3139, etc. Up-Lokayukta G.P.Shivaparakash and Lokayukta came to know through Investigations with B.D.A and other Departments that Judgments were “Given and Taken by Fraud, Collusion, with Corrupt motives etc.” and that no any allottee has any Legal Title of Ownership to their respective sites, or on the lands on which sites are formed in the Light of B.D.A’s reply to Up-lokayukta. Simply put Judgments were given on Quid-Pro-Quo basis, for SKY-FALL of PROFITS, not wind-fall profits like COAL or MINE scam.
[4] Websites Investigated contents are trying to bring to the kind perusal the True Facts to attention of Karnataka Government, Legislature, B.D.A, Karnataka High Court, Media, Transparency International, C.B.I, Karnataka Police, Advocates, whole world; so that TRUTH prevails in COURTS & GUILTY are PUNISHED.
[5] Justice G.P. Shivaprakash who closed the case on 13th March, 2002, is haunting Indian Judiciary, Karnataka High Court , Karnataka Lokayukta, Government at State & Centre since 2002 till date in Writ Petitions P.I.L 40994/2002 , 7105/2007 & 13261/2006. The facts in 7105/2007 & 13261/2006 Petitions, who have approached hiding all the TRUE FACTS. Applicant finds Writ Petitions P.I.L 40994/2002, approached by Court employees prayers are bonafide. High Court special Bench Judges are playing fraud on High Court by not cancelling 2,400 sale deeds and making a direction to hand over Lands & buildings to erstwhile land owners in accordance with Supreme Court’s Judgments in HMT Housing Society, Bangalore City Housing Co-op Society, Vyalikaval HBCS etc.,.
[6] The facts which came to be determined by Lokayukta and High Court etc., are being raised again in High Court by Justice K.Jagannath Shetty, Up-Lokayukta G.P. Shivaprakash, Justice M.P. Chinnappa, Justice A.M. Farooq and Justice T.N. Vallinayagam, the Judges of Supreme Court, Karnataka High Court. Which facts are honestly reported in our websites. In WP [PIL] 7105/2007 Up-Lokayukta G.P. Shivaprakash seek C.B.I Investigations in La-de-affairs of “Karnataka Employees HBCS” stating thus at:
Paragraph 30 [A]: “ It is Disgraceful that this Judicial Layout is mired in controversy and has become cesspool of Scandals. It has become Talk of The Town. An unknown source has created website http://www.judgesplot4plot.com derogatory to the position of Judges. It is submitted that there are too many skeletons in the closet and the management has no Sense of Duty or Shame and requires to be replaced. A thorough time bound inquiry by an independent investigating agency of all the misdeeds including allotment of sites, conversion of civic amenity sites and beneficiaries of the society is essential.
Paragraph 30 [B]: Petitioners being retired Judges of Karnataka High Court are confronted by public with Questions for which they have no answers. The question normally asked if JUDICIAL Layout is Above Law.
[7] The several judgments secured by “Karnataka Employees HBCS” state Land is acquired legally, compensation is paid to landlords legally by S.L.A.O, Judicial Layout is approved by Bangalore Development Authority. Civic Amenity sites of about 90 Acres is handed over to B.D.A, Sites are registered to bonafide Employees etc.,. And accordingly 2,400 plus sites are registered stating in each & every Sale Deed that Bangalore Development Authority has approved layout plan in 1992 .
[8] As per Govt. records, Lokayukta investigations, “Karnataka Employees HBCS” has made NO-ANY-PAYMENT-To-EITHER-To-GOVERNMENT ; NOR-GOVT-HAS-PAID- A-PENNY-TO-FARMERS, at least till they had sold all / majority sites till 1995-96, as per records we have.
[8.A] The High Court Judges including most of Chief Justices like S.Mohan were in direct alliance with Chief Ministers of Karnataka directly or through Advocate Generals like Santosh Hegde, C. Shivappa, or State Public Prosecutors like S. Doreraju or H.S. Chandramouli. This fact of un-holy nexus with CM, made the Society management into committing various crimes including “IRREGULARITIES, NEPOTISM AND CORRUPT ACTIVITIES IN ALLOT MENT OF SITES”; was made known to Upa Lokayukta M. Ramakrishana, Retired Chief Justice, Jammu & Kashmir High Court, in his letter of which contents is covered in this Application.
[9] Up-Lokayukta came to know that Judgments were secured by Fraud and contrary to facts. Based on such Judgments 1,200 plus Judges from Superior Courts to Lower Courts, Judicial Officers were registered with sale deeds of sites stating layout is approved by B.D.A. Similarly 1,200 sites to Court peons, clerks, etc.,It also came to know that Layout is formed in Revenue Lands in 193 Acres, Land Grabbing of 37 Acres, no compensation is paid to landlords etc.,. Lokayukta failed to punish the Karnataka Employees HBCS and passed illegal Order of closure of Investigations, whereby it encouraged Corruption in Karnataka State in all fields of Governance . His direction by giving “Illegal Layout Plan submitted by Society forwarded to Sub-Registrar, with a direction register sites” has amounted to legitimizing Contempt of Court, Land Grabbing, Fraud, Forgery, Cheating etc and has created ANARCHY in Karnataka. The Legislature Committee in 2007 estimates quantified 45,000 acres of Government Lands in Bangalore Urban is Grabbed and in many cases with Fraud Judgments etc., is one of contention and purpose of websites. Karnataka Public Land Board has estimated, with facts & figures, that eleven lakh acres of Government lands are Grabbed by Illegal Court Orders in Karnataka.
[10] The few facts was informed to the Applicant by Karnataka Lokayukta to Applicant’s pointed query viz., “ Query No. 3: List of Judges & Judicial Officers found to have Forged Sale deeds & constructed Illegal constructions” and “Query No. 4:Communications to Police to register complaint / investigations directed to have been given to initiate prosecution under IPC Chapters IX, X, XI, XIV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, r/w Section 34, Prevention of Corruption Act, The Goonda & Slum Grabbers Act”. The letter dated 26 Nov, 2012 states “ In relation to your queries numbers 3 & 4 there is no separate information or files”.
[11] ARE-2, who gave the 834 pages file certified copies, Mr. Pandit’s site was registered in Contempt of Upa Lokayukta Stay of Registration Order. And SPIO Mr. Mohammed Mojihid Ulla who signed the letter is also a member , if not beneficiary. Only High Court’s time-bound independent investigations into Upa Lokayukta Hush-up & frauds being perpetrated by Reddy & Billppa Bench shall make the SKELETONS & SKULLS tumbling-out, as claimed by G.P.Shivapraksh in his WP. PIL 7105/2007 in para 30.
[12] It however may be noted that Karnataka High Court Justice G.P. Shivaprakash gave two judgments in favour of Karnataka Employees HBCS viz., W.P. 1600/1994 directing Government to hand-over 17 acres of land in 1994.
[13] Then in W.P. 18447/1994 in 1994; striking down Karnataka Government direction to Sub-registrars “not to Register the Sites of Bangalore’s 32 House Building co-operative Societies including Karnataka Employees HBCS”. Judgment is reported as ILR 1994 KAR 2115. This Judgment based on Karnataka Employees HBCS registered 2,400 plus sites stating layout is approved by B.D.A including 320 Sites formed in un-acquired 33 Acres of lands, without ownership, conversion, B.D.A approval etc.,. Based on same Judgment several H.B.C.S also registered sites similarly. -
Contents of Police Complaint necessitating the said Charge Sheet, though totally ILLEGIBLE HANDWRITTEN, applicant with help of English teachers & sons, could make-out the following contents:-
29th October, 2011
To,
The Station House Officer,
M.S. Building Police station [Out Post]
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore.Dear sir,
Subject: Request to initiate action against Sri Digvijay Mote r/o , Bangalore etc.,
With reference to the above subject, I write to request you that a person identifying himself as
Sri Mr. Digvijay Mote, claim to be President of the Digvijay Mote & family founder of
Centre for Investigation and prosecution of . . universlly-. . ILLEGIBLE . . . . .– etc., a
nique website as “A family viz., http://www.judges plot 4plot. com” , (2) www.india
Corruption.com . etc.,For the past 3 days the said person Sri Digvijay Mote appears to be little aged tall, lean built with specs is found distributing pamplets —– MS Building Annexure premises along with __ILLEGIBLE_______ bigger than postcard size photo card size photo state pamphlets of Hon’ble Judges and the language in English ai not clear as to what exactly he means with allegation incorporated in it. He is also distributing pamphlets during office hours along with Photostat press clippings of the past , since in 2004 etc,, He has been using all north vulgar words, using vulgar words, singing vulgar songs, against the respected persons incorporated in the pamphlets which is enclosed here with for your reference.
The citizen who anable around him listen to him patiently laughing to him mimicry not knowing what or whether this is absurd about this.
Member of the public namely Sri Murugesan , Sri ChandrashekharSri ……LLEGIBLE…… _________ ___ILLEGIBLE______ _________ and they have identified them ____ and called up on telephone and about this unruly behavior and __ILLEGIBLE_______ to the regular _________ addition today at 5:10pm the ____ILLEGIBLE_____ Digivijay Mote identifies by his name called on our landline number ___ILLEGIBLE______ from his mobile 9886619410 the _________ office land line __ILLEGIBLE_______ and now in their conversation with me he states that he has all proof with records to establish that there _____ILLEGIBLE____ in the Judicial Layout forming by Honorable Judges and so many other with __ILLEGIBLE___ etc. He further states, if his__ILLEGIBLE_______ toward their aggitation to uproot corruption land scam is taken care of. He _________ further or he would lodge a complaint and ____ILLEGIBLE_____ very bad ____ILLEGIBLE_____ that _____ arrested on the ___ILLEGIBLE______ of office of the ___ILLEGIBLE____ and____ILLEGIBLE_____ for various offense, and after _ILLEGIBLE__ he was acquitted etc __ILLEGIBLE_______ things _____ILLEGIBLE____ are incorporated in his pamphlets derogatory __ILLEGIBLE_____.
I told him that should you have any information, you are at liberty to the proper forum/authority and lodge your complaint produce what ever documents you have in report before whom ever you may _____ILLEGIBLE____ . But you should not obstruct the movement ___ILLEGIBLE______ _________ .
It is therefore request you please initiate action as per to and ____ILLEGIBLE_____ ____ILLEGIBLE_____ that be _____ILLEGIBLE____ use vulgar words, printing pamphlets with no proof spread sever ____ILLEGIBLE_____ in the minds of public and ___ILLEGIBLE______ intimidating etc.
Yours Sincerely,
Syed Riaz.
Deputy Commissioner [Public Relations],
Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bangalore-1
[A Rubber Stamp Seal]
……………………… Police Acknowledement…below…………………..
Police Acknowledement in Kannada translated into English reads thus:
On 29.10.2011, at 18.10 Hours Complainant received, numbered as
FIR No. 58/2011 u/s 341, 504 , 506 I.P.C , case registered.
….Signed…. ASI
-
On 6th June, 2012 Ld. Judge Nagalingan Gouda Patil read out Charges, on which date my Advocate reminded him that matter is listed for recalling N.B.W issued previous day, though I was very much in Court hall. At the insistence of advocate he cancelled Charge Sheet. He had framed charges according to the wish of Complainant, as Complainant’s father is also member.
-
After having recalled the Charges, in last hearing, in absence of any Advocates to assist me as per Sec. 303, he has listed for “Hear Before Charges” .
But he failed to respect his earlier Order to P.P. to file Objections to my Application on 10th October, 2012. Nor did P.P uttered a word till date. It has confirmed the suspicion of applicant that Court is acting contrary to law and such errant Biased Orders being passed at the behest of 867 Judges & Lokayuktas etc., which is covered below; necessitating to file this Application to Transfer case to High Court. -
I am being heard by this Court contrary Sec. 303 ‘Right of person against whom proceedings are instituted to be defended’. In absence of Advocate, Applicant, is appearing in person since 10th october, 2012. I am yet to get an Advocate who shall stand for truth against all odds and say FRAUD is FRAUD. Most of Advocates whom I met in Supreme Court and other High Courts are ready to take up my case only if it is Transferred to Hon’ble Karnataka High Court.
They are of opinion that, looking at the Court records, I am being framed by Lokayukta, S.P.P, Police, Presiding Judges under the influence of 4,500 Public Servants belonging to Judicial Department, who are Members of said Karnataka Employees HBCS. -
I am XII standard passed. I was a successful businessman in Pest Control Services, having had my office in eleventh floor, High Point-IV, Hotel Chalukya Circle, Bangalore-1. I closed the business voluntarily to do national service. I was successful in getting Supreme Court Orders against Election Commission of India in 1993 to hold elections in all states, without denying “Right-To-Ballot & Timely-Vote; along with Citizens of Other States; in all States”. I was successful in getting through Public interest Litigation in Karnataka High Court in 1994 in Appeal, getting “Right to life & Dignity to 250 plus starving Sri Lankan Children who were brought by IPKF; and were being staying in Residential School in Jakkur, Yelahanka”. I was first in India in challenging Halogen Lamps of Cars / Vehicles using High Beams like SHOOT WITHOUT SHOT i.e., killing people by blinding their path in nights”.
[2] In the bargain to do social justice to Indian masses, I had to liquidate all my Properties & Children school funds and invest for national Causes. In the bargain, my elder son deepak Mote had to working & earn to manage my house & mission. He is owner of www.judgesPlot4Plot.com along with other son Sant Mote , who is in final year in Christ University B.A in Mass Communication. DEEPAK MOTE while he was in school also used to help accompany me raise voice against CORRUPTION IN INDIAN JUDICIARY. In 2004, as a minor, also was arrested along with me & my wife on the Police Complaint of Lokayukta; for our Voice was raised against Pushin-under Carpet the Rs. 8,454 Crores JUDICIAL SCAM of 867 Judges & Lokayuktas, which is more fully explained in following paragraphs in C.C 8838/2005. Sant Mote apart from college studies, is also part-time earning to support his expenses & Family. Similarly my wife is working as School teacher in Private school which helps family to survive Hand-To-Mouth and also Mission in low profile. donations have stopped coming as I have lost interest in running around Bangalore; as I am Physically Handicapped declared by Directorate For Welfare of Disabled Persons vide IDENTITY CARD FOR DISABLED NUMBER 37653 ON 22 dECEMBER, 2004. These information is to inform that with DIGNITY we live; but not to buttress any sympathy. I love Reality, than falsification oneself.
[3] With common sense law I am trying to assist the Court in finding out the TRUTH; behind the Complaint. This complaint is second one, first being in 2004 by Lokayukta N. Venkatachala through Lokayukta Registrar D. Krishnappa. Both are illegal beneficiaries sites in JUDICIAL Layout formed by Karnataka Employees HBCS. In that Complaint I allowed myself to suffer along with my wife & son were also accused for two long years, presuming that Good Senses shall prevail upon 867 Judges , Police, Government etc., . But it they continue indulging in increased proportion of Corrupt, Nepotism and Illegal activities.
[4] Applicant has not attached any ANNEXURES as TONNES of record worth detailing the places, Offices, Courts, Governments Departments etc., including Karnataka high Courts, is detailed in this application. It is made so to cut short the Application to bare minimum. -
Frauds on this Court by Karnataka Lokayukta in 2004 to 2006 in C.C 8838/2005:- If this Court were to act Judicially in C.C 8838/2005 and bring to Justice the REAL CULPRITS viz., 867 Plus Corrupt Judges & Judicial Officers who happened to be members in their personal capacity for personal enrichment; the present & past false complainants to stand trial would not have arose, as fraud would have been unravelled in 2004-2006 alone and this applicant & family would not have suffered at the hands of injustice by this court. Nor the present False, fraudulent complaint would have been filed. But then Judge Sri. K. Palakshappa, S.L.F.No. 2994 chose to protect the Guilty Complaints and treated me & family as “Sheeps sent by Butcher Karnataka Lokayukta” to slaughter!
-
Law Day Speech by Chief Justice of India Hon’ble Justice S.H. Kapadia “If anyone knows a Judge is believed to be corrupt;he should be named in Public; Take a Stand & Name him in Public & Tell the Chief Justice” – 26 Nov 2011 : In obedience to CJI Call to all Citizens, Digvijay Mote hosted on websites for benefit of masses / Citizens; in around 27th November, 2011 and were Hand-delivered to the private Secretaries to all Sitting Hon’ble Judges of Karnataka High court, so as to bring to kind notice of all Sitting Judges of Karnataka High Court including Chief Justice. Which document happens to be part & parcel of “Page Number nine of Charge Sheet against me in CC 6711/2012; on top of page”. And in the same page he pasted below DNA News dated November 22, 2011 with Head Line “ THE JUDGES WITH PLOTS”.
-
Allegation of Complainant PRO Riaz is aforesaid three publications are distributed from 25th October, 2011 to 29th October, 2011,. reflected in CC. 6711/2012 at pages 9 & 10, reflects that Applicant is either GOD or DEVIL. For I can not put words into mouth of Chief Justice of India Hon’ble Justice S.H. Kapadia and force Him to deliver Law Day speech in the manner whatever he chose to make. Nor the Courts can punish God or Devil, as courts can punish Persons & Citizens, or their pets & animals. I am neither pet nor animal!
It is one amongst seven sermons to all courts of India by Supreme Court of India in reported judgment STPL(Web) 978 SC 19 . Union of India Vs. Ramesh Gandhi, P. SATHASIVAM & J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ; that
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. -
Fraud vitiates everything including judicial acts: The Hon’ble Supreme Court speaking through present Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, then in 2011, held Reported case 2011 STPL(Web) 978 SC 19 . Union of India Vs. Ramesh Gandhi, P. SATHASIVAM & J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 1356 of 2004-Decided on 14-11-2011 thus:
22. This Court on more than one occasion held that fraud vitiates everything including judicial acts. In S.P. Chengal Varaya Naidu (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 1, this Court observed as follows in para 1:-
1. “Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and honest in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree – by the first court or by the highest court – has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.”
23. Again in A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1546, this Court reviewed the law on this position and reiterated the principle. In paras 38 and 39 it was held as follows:
38. The matter can be looked at from a different angle as well. Suppose, a case is decided by a competent Court of Law after hearing the parties and an order is passed in favour of the applicant/plaintiff which is upheld by all the courts including the final Court. Let us also think of a case where this Court does not dismiss Special Leave Petition but after granting leave decides the appeal finally by recording reasons. Such order can truly be said to be a judgment to which Article 141 of the Constitution applies. Likewise, the doctrine of merger also gets attracted. All orders passed by the courts/authorities below, therefore, merge in the judgment of this Court and after such judgment, it is not open to any party to the judgment to approach any court or authority to review, recall or reconsider the order.
39. The above principle, however, is subject to exception of fraud. Once it is established that the order was obtained by a successful party by practising or playing fraud, it is vitiated. Such order cannot be held legal, valid or in consonance with law. It is nonexistent and non est and cannot be allowed to stand. This is the fundamental principle of law and needs no further elaboration. Therefore, it has been said that a judgment, decree or order obtained by fraud has to be treated as nullity, whether by the court of first instance or by the final court. And it has to be treated as nonest by every Court, superior or inferior. [emphasis supplied] .
If a judgment obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and is to be treated as non est by every Court superior or inferior, it would be strange logic to hear that an enquiry into the question whether a judgment was secured by playing fraud on the Court by not disclosing the necessary facts relevant for the adjudication of the controversy before the Court is impermissible. From the above judgments, it is clear that such an examination is permissible. Such a principle is required to be applied with greater emphasis in the realm of public law jurisdiction as the mischief resulting from such fraud has larger dimension affecting the larger public interest. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the judgment under appeal that no Court can examine the correctness of the contents of the impugned FIR, is unsustainable and without any basis in law.
The very complaint in the FIR is that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, as affirmed by this Court, is a consequence of a deliberate and dishonest suppression of the relevant facts necessary for adjudicating the rights and obligations of the parties to the said litigation.
24. Coming to the question as to what amounts for securing a judgment by playing fraud in the Court- In Chengal Varaya Naidu (supra), this Court categorically held that the non-disclosure of all the necessary facts tantamounts to playing fraud on the Courts. At para 6 of the said judgment, it was held as follows:
“…………..If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.”
28. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604, this Court after reviewing large number of cases on the question of the quashing the FIR held at paras 108 and 109 as follows:
“108.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise,clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.30. For all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained and the same is required to be set aside and we, accordingly, set aside the same. The appeal stands allowed.
-
Failure of a fair Trial & Transfer Of Criminal Cases u/s 406 & 407 in ACMM-VIII Court:
[1] Applicant being as mentioned above, is Illiterate in Judicial, Legal , Criminal matters ; has through common sense found the following articles on Supreme Court of India Judgments, supporting his claim for Transfer Of this Criminal Case, amongst catena of such cases, where the Magistate has made over case to High Courts for Fair Trial to un-ravel TRUTH behind the Complaints being SLAPPED on me by Lokayukta or its Officers, for Publicizing CORRUPTION, NEPOTISM, CRONYISM within Lokayukta protecting 4,500 plus members of Judicial Fraternity who are members of private housing Society Judicial Emp. Housing society, High Court, Bangalore.
[2] It is failure of Lokayukta machinery for not directing Police to arrest 867 Corrupt Judges and make them stand trial in Criminal Courts like any other common man. Such omssion is manifestly fraud on Constitution & Cr.P.C, Article 14 “All Persons are equal before Law”. I.P.C Section 21 r/w P.C. Act, Goonda Act etc., which this Applicant craves to bring to the notice of High Court through Private Complaint, once this case is transferred to High Court. Applicant wants get redressed through High Court under Criminal Writ Jurisdiction.
[3] The article titled published in web at http://legalperspectives.blogspot.in/2010/05/transfer-of-criminal-cases-law.html :-
The Supreme Court in a recent decision has revisited the law relating to transfer of criminal cases from the jurisdictional courts to other courts. Traditionally cited as a means to avoid failure of trial due to extenuating circumstances prevailing in the trial court, the special powers vested in the Supreme Court have come to be exercised with the underlying intent to ensure that externalities do not result in failure of justice delivery machinery.
The Supreme Court was dealing a prayer of CBI for transfer of cases pending against one Hopeson Ningshen who was accused of the kidnapping and murder of three government employees in the State of Manipur which had provoked an outcry in the State of Manipur and protests were held by several groups. In these circumstances, apprehending social unrest, conflict between persons belonging to different communities and also the life threat to the accused, prayed for the transfer of criminal trails to a court in Delhi. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court revisited the law relating to transfer of criminal cases to allow the prayer of the CBI.
The Bench inter alia observed as under;
9. We must reiterate that the foremost consideration for directing the transfer of cases under Section 406 of CrPC is to examine what is expedient in the ends of justice. This is self-evident from a bare reading of the relevant provision which states:
406. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals. – (1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court. …
10. This court has of course given orders under the above-mentioned provision in the past. Since this is a discretionary power, it may be instructive to refer to the following observations made in the matter reported as Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 4 SCC 167, (V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. at Paras. 2 and 5):
“2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner’s grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances.
… 5. A more serious ground which disturbs us in more ways than one is the alleged absence of congenial atmosphere for a fair and impartial trial. It is becoming a frequent phenomenon in our country that court proceedings are being disturbed by rude hoodlums and unruly crowds, jostling or cheering and disrupting the judicial hearing with menaces, noises and worse. This tendency of toughs and street roughs to violate the serenity of the court is obstructive of the course of justice and must surely be stamped out. Likewise, the safety of the person of an accused or complainant is an essential condition for participation in a trial and where that is put in peril by commotion, tumult or threat on account of pathological conditions prevalent in a particular venue, the request for a transfer may not be dismissed summarily. It causes disquiet and concern to a court of justice if a person seeking justice is unable to appear, present one’s case, bring one’s witnesses or adduce evidence. Indeed, it is the duty of the court to assure propitious conditions which conduce to comparative tranquility at the trial. Turbulent conditions putting the accused’s life in danger or creating chaos inside the court hall may jettison public justice. If this vice is peculiar to a particular place and is persistent the transfer of the case from that place may become necessary. Likewise, if there is general consternation or atmosphere of tension or raging masses of people in the entire region taking sides and polluting the climate, vitiating the necessary neutrality to hold a detached judicial trial, the situation may be said to have deteriorated to such an extent as to warrant transfer. …”
11. The observations quoted above were also cited with approval in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 157, wherein the Court had also observed (Pasayat, J. at Para. 36):“… It has to be unmistakably understood that a trial which is primarily aimed at ascertaining the truth has to be fair to all concerned. There can be no analytical, all comprehensive or exhaustive definition of the concept of a fair trial, and it may have to be determined in seemingly infinite variety of actual situations with the ultimate object in mind viz. whether something that was done or said either before or at the trial deprived the quality of fairness to a degree where a miscarriage of justice has resulted. It will not be correct to say that it is only the accused who must be fairly dealt with. That would be turning a Nelson’s eye to the needs of the society at large and the victims or their family members and relatives. Each one has an inbuilt right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society. Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated. If the witnesses get threatened or are forced to give false evidence that also would not result in a fair trial. The failure to hear material witnesses is certainly denial of fair trial.”
12. While there are several other instances where this Court has passed orders in exercise of the power contemplated by Section 406 of CrPC, the observations cited above are sufficient to guide the adjudication of the present case. In order to ensure that a fair trial takes place in the cases in question, we must account for the interests of all stakeholders, namely the accused, the witnesses, the prosecutors, the near relatives of the victims as well as society at large. We are indeed confronted with a complex situation where there is a certain degree of divergence in the interests of the respective stakeholders. The CBI in its capacity as the investigating agency has clearly conveyed the risks associated with conducting the trial in Manipur. Even if one were to concede that the apprehension about social unrest and communal tension between the Meities and the Nagas were a little exaggerated, there can be no quarrel that there exists a real possibility of a physical attack on the respondent-accused as long as he is in Manipur. It was precisely because of this consideration that the respondent-accused is being held in custody at a distant location in Delhi. Furthermore, conducting the trial in Manipur could also reasonably lead to more friction in the State of Manipur which in turn could affect the trial proceedings themselves. We must especially take note of the fact that the killings took place in a region where opinions are sharply divided on the justness of the causes espoused by the NSCN (IM) and that the respondent accused is a member of the same organisation. This creates a risk of intimidation of the witnesses as well as undue prejudice seeping into the minds of those who may be involved in the legal proceedings in different capacities.
Have a look at the decision. Post-Script Rejoinder
After writing this post we came across a recent decision of the Supreme Court which has expressed similar sentiments and explains the principles in relation to the transfer of criminal trails. For the benefit of our readers we are continuing this post to add the excerpts from the recent decision in Vikas Kumar Roorkewal v. State of Uttarakhand wherein the Court inter alia observed as under;
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Himanshu Singh Sabharwal vs. State of M.P. and others (2008) 4 SCR 783, where this Court in paragraphs 14 and 15 has observed as under: –
“14. “Witnesses” as Benthem said: are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence, the importance and primacy of the quality of trial process. If the witness himself is incapacitated from acting as eyes and ears of justice, the trial gets putrefied and paralysed, and it no longer can constitute a fair trial. The incapacitation may be due to several factors like the witness being not in a position for reasons beyond control to speak the truth in the Court or due to negligence or ignorance or some corrupt collusion. Time has become ripe to act on account of numerous experiences faced by Courts on account of frequent turning of witnesses as hostile, either due to threats, coercion, lures and monetary considerations at the instance of those in power, their henchmen and hirelings, political clouts and patronage and innumerable other corrupt practices ingeniously adapted to smoother and stifle ruth and realities coming out to surface rendering truth and justice, to become ultimate casualties. Broader public and societal interests require that the victims of the crime who are not ordinarily parties to prosecution and the interests of State represented by their prosecuting agencies do not suffer even in slow process but irreversibly and irretrievably, which if allowed would undermine and destroy public confidence in the administration of justice, which may ultimately pave way for anarchy, oppression and injustice resulting in complete breakdown and collapse of the edifice of rule of law, enshrined and jealously guarded and protected by the Constitution. There comes the need for protecting the witness. Time has come when serious and undiluted thoughts are to be bestowed for protecting witnesses so that ultimate truth is presented before the Court and justice triumphs and the trial is not reduced to mockery. The State has a definite role to play in protecting the witnesses, to start with at least in sensitive cases involving those in power, who has political patronage and could wield muscle and money power, to avert trial getting tainted and derailed and truth becoming a casualty. As a protector of its citizens it has to ensure that during a trial in Court the witness could safely depose truth without any fear of being haunted by those against whom he has deposed. Some legislative enactments like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short the ‘TADA Act’) have taken note of the reluctance shown by witnesses to depose against dangerous criminals-terrorists. In a milder form also the reluctance and the hesitation of witnesses to depose against people with muscle power, money power or political power has become the order of the day. If ultimately truth is to be arrived at, the eyes and ears of justice have to be protected so that the interests of justice do not get incapacitated in the sense of making the proceedings before Courts mere mock trials as are usually seen in movies.
15. Legislative measures to emphasise prohibition against tampering with witness, victim or informant have become the imminent and inevitable need of the day. Conducts which illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in proceedings before the Courts have to be seriously and sternly dealt with. There should not be any undue anxiety to only protect the interest of the accused. That would be unfair as noted above to the needs of the society. On the contrary, the efforts should be to ensure fair trial where the accused and the prosecution both get a fair deal. Public interest in the proper administration of justice must be given as much importance if not more, as the interests of the individual accused. In this courts have a vital role to play.”
15. Above judgment clearly enunciates the importance of witness in criminal trial. This is a case of murder of a Superintending Engineer. There is no manner of doubt that brutal assault was mounted on him which resulted into his death. The son of the deceased is seeking transfer of proceedings on ground of coercion and threat to the witnesses as well as doubtful sincerity of the investigating agency and prosecuting agency. In effective cross-examination by public prosecutor of the driver who resiled from the statement made during investigation speaks volumes about the sincerity/ effectiveness of the prosecuting agency. The necessity of fair trial hardly needs emphasis. The State has a definite role to play in protecting the witnesses, to start with at least in sensitive cases. The learned Judge has failed to take participatory role in the trial. He was not expected to act like a mere tape recorder to record whatever has been stated by the witnesses. Section 311 of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act confers vast and wide powers on Court to elicit all necessary materials by playing an active role in the evidence collecting process. However, the record does not indicate that the learned Judge presiding the trial had exercised powers under Section 165 of the Evidence Act which is in a way complementary to his other powers. It is true that there must be reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice may not be done and mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done cannot be the basis for transfer. However, there is no manner of doubt that the reasonable apprehension that there would be failure of justice and acquittal of the accused only because the witnesses are threatened is made out by the petitioner.
16. This Court, on various occasions, had opportunity to discuss the importance of fair trial in Criminal Justice System and various circumstances in which a trial can be transferred to dispense fair and impartial justice. It would be advantageous to notice a few decisions of this Court with regard to the scope of Section 406 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In Gurcharan Dass Chadha vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 1418, this Court held as under: –
“A case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. A petitioner is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged. It is one of the principles of the administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. However, a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice. The Court has further to see whether apprehension is reasonable or not. To judge the reasonableness of the apprehension the state of the mind of the person who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension must not only be entertained, but must appear to the court to be a reasonable apprehension.”
In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi vs. Rani Jethmalani (1979) 4 SCC 167, this Court has observed as under: –
“Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner’s grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances.”
In K. Anbazhagan vs. Superintendent of Police (2004) 3 SCC 767, this Court held as under: –
“Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is trite law that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and not free from bias, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake shaking the confidence of the public in the system and woe would be the rule of law. It is important to note that in such a case the question is not whether the petitioner is actually biased but the question is whether the circumstances are such that there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner.”
In Abdul Nazar Madani vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2000) 6 SCC 204, this Court observed as under: –
“The purpose of criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, any party can seek the transfer of a case within the State under Section 407 and anywhere in the country under Section 406 Cr.P.C. The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises. If it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not possible impartially and objectively and without any bias before any court or even at any place, the appropriate court may transfer the case to another court where it feels that holding of fair and proper trial is conducive. No universal or hard-and-fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Convenience of the parties including the witness to be produced at the trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioners alone who approached the court on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society.”
17. From the averments made in the petition it is evident that the accused belong to powerful gang operating in U.P. from which State of Uttarakhand is carved out. The petitioner has been able to show the circumstances from which it can be reasonably inferred that it has become difficult for the witnesses to safely depose truth because of fear of being haunted by those against whom they have to depose. The reluctance of the witnesses to go to the court at Haridwar in spite of receipt of repeated summons is bound to hamper the course of justice. If such a situation is permitted to continue, it will pave way for anarchy, oppression, etc., resulting in breakdown of criminal justice system. In order to see that the incapacitation of the eye-witnesses is removed and justice triumphs, it has become necessary to grant the relief claimed in the instant petition. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if transfer of the case from Haridwar to Delhi is ordered.
Courtesy:- :PENNED BY TARUN JAIN ON 5/06/2010 .
CATEGORY: CRIMINAL LAW, LAW AND SOCIETY, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE . -
Karnataka High Court is Court of Records, where applicant has confidence to get Justice against powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges & Lokayukta:- This court by transferring this case to Hon’ble High Court, shall only enhance its prestige and glory in the eyes of all litigants, Karnataka High Court & the Karnataka Government. The High Court has powers to re-open past Judgment . I can convince High Court to re-open the Cases / JUdgments “ Karnataka Employees HBCS” has secured more than 27 Judgments fraudulently in Karnataka High Court in developing JUDICIAL Layout. Karnataka High Court is Court of Records. Any frauds committed on it amounts to Fraud on Court of Records.
-
Justice Dattu’s Plot4Plot, High Court Judges R.M.Reddy & Billappa Frauds being perpetrated on Karnataka High Court:-
[1] “ Page 14 -15 of Charge Sheet in present CC 6711/2012 titled ‘February 2010 JUSTICE BULLETIN” , is document publicized in our http://indiancorruptjudges.com/ site in 2010. The said Society has committed various crimes which are reported in the said pamphlet.
[2] The Crimes are “ Criminal Conspiracies, Cheating, Frauds, Forgery, Criminal Contempt, Imposters, Land Grabbing, AKRAMA-SAKRAMA , Coercion of Govt. & Legislature”. “Judges become Traitors”, “867 Judges R more Corrupt & Dangerous than CJ Dinakaran”.
[3] Pamphlet further reads “Defuncting ‘UD, BDA, BBMP, Dy Commr, Police, BWSSB .. etc.,’”. “Professing Hypocrisy & Sycophancy”.
[4] Pamphlet also contains articles under Sub-titles “Corruption breeds inefficiency as incompetent people get into positions by corrupt methods” , “The Bar is said to be the Watchdog of the Bench” , “Role of JUDICIARY EXPLAINED & CLARIFIED”. The Pamphlet decorated with CORRUPT Judges’ photos. They include, to name a few, Ram Mohan Reddy, H.Billappa, R.V.Raveendran, T.S. Thakur, H.L. Dattu, N.Venkatachala, V.Gopal Goda, Majula Chellur, K.Sreedhar Rao, Rama jois, Adi S. Bashetti etc.,.
[5] Those Pamphlets were with pride received & admired by Bar & Bench of Karnataka High Court since 2010 till date, and no one much less a Police complaint was made or Petitioned to High Court of whose photos were there in Bad Taste.
-
The two Judges of Karnataka High Court Mr. Ram Mohan Reddy & H. Billappa adore the “ Page 14 -15 of Charge Sheet in present CC 6711/2012 titled ‘February 2010 JUSTICE BULLETIN”, for the Brother Judges who are constituted as special Bench. They have passed ‘Orders in Contempt of their very Court Orders’ to appease Brother-Corrupt-867 -Judges-Lokayuktas with CORRUPT MOTIVES directing Bangalore Bruhat Mahanagar Palike [BBMP] to take over Layout and or C.A. Sites; when B.D.A, HUD, Society have claimed that the JUDICIAL LAYOUT is REVENUE LAYOUT. That Layout is within BDA jurisdiction as one of Thousands of unauthorised Layouts in Bangalore
[2] Petition in context is W.P. No. 40994 of 2002 [PIL] by “Judicial Layout Residents and Site Holders Association” Versus “The Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society”.
The main prayers are:- [i] DIRECT THE First respondent to produce before this Hon’ble Court the layout plan of the Judicial Layout approved in favour of the 4th respondent Society by its Resolution No. 503/92, dated 16-11-1992; [ii] DECLARE all the actions of the 4th respondent society and anyone claiming under it, deviating from the approved layout plan sanctioned by the first respondent bearing Resolution No. 503/92, dated 16-11-1992, insofar as they altered the nature of the Parks, civic amenity sites and other open spaces specified therein, as illegal, void and inoperative; [iii] ISSUE a writ, order of direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the first respondent to take registered relinquishment deed from the 4th respondent society transferring all the Parks, civic amenity sites and other open spaces as specified in the layout plan sanctioned by it as per Resolution No. 503/92 dated 16-11-1992 and hand over possession of the same to the 3rd respondent herein, in the interest of justice and equity.
[4] All Respondents including Government, Bangalore Development Authority [B.D.A ] have filed more than once Affidavits stating JUDICIAL LAYOUT is UN-AUTHORIZED. Society has formed 320 sites in POOR UNEDUCATED FARMERS’ Lands WITHOUT authority of Law by Land Grabbing & through Court’s Fraudualant Decrees of 37 acres. And in exchange of lands, Society has given the Land lords few sites in which sale deeds “it mentioned Layout is approved by B.D.A”!
[5] What is more astonishing is the Society has mentioned in its affidavit in 2003, 2005 and till recently that “LAY OUT IS NEVER EVER APPROVED BY First Respondent And Bangalore Development Authority”. When Society which itself says on Affidavit in High Court, Reddy Bench failed in hauling up all 4,500 Members securing Judgment by Fraud on High Court. Similarly failed to cancel sale deeds; but Civil Contempt against Board of Directors CCC No. 87/2004 is going on and on! -
Applicant suspects Two-Brother-Judges hatched Criminal Conspiracy, in the like manner & terms as was done by Karnataka Lokayukta & Upa Lokayukta in UPLOK/BCD/64/1999-00, to coerce & Collude with Govt. and pass illegal, contemptuous Orders . It is learnt through credible sources that both Judges were and are bribed heavily in the form of Money, sites in the name of their relatives & Kind. The High Court Orders have “Tried to LEGALIZE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT of High Court Judgments” viz., ILR 1994 KAR 2115 quashing Govt. directions to Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka “Not to register of sites presented by said Society & 31 other Housing societies until and unless legally Layout Plan is approved by BDA, genuine members are Identified as per Judgment given by Rama Jois & Rajshekhar Murty in Narayan Reddy’s case in 1991; ILR 1995 KAR 3139 where all Judges of High Court except two Judges illegally convinced that Layout is approved B.D.A ; W.P [GM] [BDA] 39338/1992, where the Society represented by its 867-PROVEN-CORRUPT-CRIMINAL-Judges took stay against BDA by getting listed before its member & S.Rajendra Babu on Quid-Pro-Quo-Basis. He stayed the BDA demand of Rs. eleven Crores of Rupees. Later, Society in 1996 withdrew the W.P!
[2] Applicant wonders manner in which Corrupt Judges are being not only elevated to Supreme Court, but also made to “RULE, WE CITIZENS of INDIA”.
[3] There are RUMOURS that to avoid or delay Prosecution of 867 Judges standing trial, getting arrested, handcuffed, jailed is planned by allowing G.P. Shivaprakash’s WP 7105/2007 questioning his very Judgments & investigations; who as Judge, Upa-Lokayukta is a Creator of ILLEGAL LAYOUT, the High Court has failed miserably in admitting his case; which facts could be addressed by Applicant, once CC 6711/2012 is transferred to High Court. -
[1] That Layout is NEVER APPROVED by B.D.A as claimed dis-honestly by 867 Judges & Judicial Officers in their Sale Deeds. Nor did site owners opened Khatas of sites in B.D.A. Illegal entries are made in C.M.C ,Yelahanka as the layout is never handed over to CMC; as the Layout & Sites are under safe custody of DISMISSED HIGH COURT Employee Sippegowda, as on date. Nor he can hand over Layout as lands are never given possession by Special Land acquisition Officer; as Society which as Company had entered into Agreement on 4th January, 1988 in terms of Section 41 of L.A.Act, has dis-obeyed all conditions; through illegal Court Orders.
[2] Apart from that Supreme Court Judge H.L.Dattu’s telephonic Orders and promises to two jUdges that he will help them in their JUDICIAL CAREERS, as Chief Justice Of India, where he he is likely going to be; unless time forbids! Dattu is accused of taking two sites. One sold it to Mr. Balkrishna. Other One being Gifted to his grandson on his Third Birth Anniversary.
[3] One being Gifted to his grandson, that Site happens to be in”ILLEGAL LAYOUT in ILLEGAL C.A. Site for GANESHA TEMPLE site admeasuring 195’ x 200’. Against sites allotted to Dattu & S.R. Nayak contempt is going-on, while Society has cancelled all other Sale Deeds of allottees. which Contempt proceeding are going-on vide CCC 87/2004 in Karnataka High Court. Dattu has made known to the whole world through Supreme Court of India website that he has assets which not TAINTED in http://www.sci.nic.in/ under Assets profile 4.Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu at web link http://www.sci.nic.in/assets/hld.pdf . The page-3 paragraph reads thus: “50 Ft. x 80 Ft. Vacant site at Allalasandra Village, Judicial Officers Layout,Bangalore was under litigation. It IS cleared recently and the same has been gifted to grandson – Master Mihir Adithya on his third birthday. Gift Deed registered at YelahanKa Sub-Registrar’s Office, Bangalore on 21.06.2010”.
[4] It is unfortunate Dattu failed to mention Site number which as per our investigations, of which sale deed we have is 859/D.
[5] Such acts of Dattu, Applicant feels is GREAT DISHONOR to Supreme Court of India and other Judges of India sitting & Retired Judges, legal fraternity, general public of India and to Nations across globe sending ILLEGAL MESSAGES. This act of him tantamounts Criminal & serious in nature. He has coerced BBMP, BDA, Karnataka Govt & High Court to act as per his personal whims. such criminal act be punishable under I.T. Act, under various sections of IPC, Contempt of Court Act, etc., .
[6] Dattu, Reddy & Billappa who have acted Illegally, extra-constitutionally playing fraud on Karnataka high Court and contrary to the OATH of OFFICE and contrary to provisions of Constitution & Laws there under; stand proved of Criminal Contempt, Criminal Conspiracies, Breach of Trust, Cheating, several Sections of prevention of Corruption Act, Contempt of several judgments .
[7] It is another piece of information to support, for transfer of my Application to High Court, at the earliest point of time . -
What was required of Reddy & Billappa if were to act JUDICIALLY ALONE as they are expected to function; they must have asked to RETURN LANDS / SITES to ERSTWHILE-LAND-OWNERS, attach all properties of 867 Corrupt Judges & Lokayuktas as ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED PROPERTIES and must have directed State to initiate Criminal Prosecution of 867 Judges, Board of directors of Said society.
-
Applicant hopes after this Court transfers C.C 6711/2012 to High Court, he will move Private Complaint before Karnataka high Court seeking above reliefs, this is another reason for allowing this Application of transfer to High Court.
-
In support of the said contention I reproduce latest Order available in Hon’ble Karnataka High Court website in W.P. [PIL] 40994/2002 :- Hon’ble Justice RAM MOHAN REDDY & H.BILLAPPA:- 26/04/2013; Order in WP 40994/2002:- Learned counsel for the respondent -Society files a memo dated 26.4.2013 enclosing an additional tabular statement furnishing information as regards sites owned/not owned by the office bearers of the Society in the names of their family members. In the said statement, it is noticed that Kempathimmaiah, Shiresthedar in the City Civil Court at Bangalore, an ex-officio office bearer, while holding the post of Director secured allotment of a site measuring 40’ x 50’ in the name of his wife Smt.Ranjini, as an associate member of the Society. We think it appropriate to extend an opportunity to Kempathimmaiah to put in his explanation.
Memo is taken on record.
Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel for the fourth respondent Society, submits that as and when the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike carries out its due diligence, as recorded in the order dated 5.4.2013, the Society would indicate the date for handing over possession of the properties.
Sri.Narasimhan, learned counsel for the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, submits that in the wake of the elections to the State Legislative Assembly, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike requires a fortnights time commencing from 10.5.2013 to carry out its due diligence.
List after summer vacation.
It is needless to state that the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, after carrying out its due diligence, may indicate to the fourth respondent Society, in writing, in the matter of taking possession of the properties. The Society is permitted to fix a date to hand over possession of the properties and execute and lodge for registration the release-cum-relinquishment deed, without awaiting further orders of this Court and report on the next date of hearing. -
SKULLS & SKELETONS IN LOKAYUKTA CUPBOARD:- Hence to know the Magic Wand of 867 Judges & Lokayuktas modus operandi , I filed applications on 28.9.2012 under R.T.Act seeking the information as follows:-
-
“COMPT/UPLOK/BCD/64/1999” = “Nexus of Chief Minister, Judicial-Layout, Lokayukta- Appointments”:- It is humbly submitted we got the answers for that Magic Wand from Lokayukta office on 26 Nov,2011 after paying Rs. 1668 for 834 pages of records. Few Magic Wands reproduced below in Boxes. But it is worthwhile to know as how Lokayuktas are selected, or how Judges are appointed, elevated, to recall & remember the Judgment passed by G.P. Shivaprakash while he officiating as Judge of Karnataka high court since 1990 to 1997 or so.
[b] Chief Minister Jagdeesh Shettar, as Leader of opposition he was first person to see the Frauds committed by 867 Judges way back in 2001-2002 produced by us. He intentionally, just before 2013 General Assembly Elections appointed Lokayukta Y.Bhaskar Rao & Subhash Adi who are illegal beneficiaries of Sites from Society. In same manner Yeddyurappa appointed S.B.Majige who had got site in Judicial Layout.
[c] Rather it has become Rule since 1995 , after ILR 1995 KAR 3139; Judges who are ready to say CM, MY MASTER to chief Minister shall alone be appointed as Lokayukta or any other such posts. To make such Charge one has to have records, Applicant submits.
[d] G.P. Shivaprakash delivered one Judgment in 1994 reported as ILR 1994 KAR 4115 which is in short quashed the Govt Order & got his share of Quid-Pro-Quo site No. 1420 within two months from delivering Judgment:-I . L . R . 1994 KAR 2115 . SHIVAPRAKASH . J
Karnataka State Judicial Employees’ House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. vs State of Karnataka * [W.P. No. 18447 of 1994 dated 15th July 1994 ]:-
CIRCULAR BY COMMISSIONER FOR REGISTRATION & STAMPS DATED 17-05-1994. Release of site allotted in private layout sanctioned by BDA, each & every time & ‘No objection certificate’ from Registrar of Co-operative Societies, do not arise – Circular of no legal effect & liable to be struck down.HELD:
[i] There is no provision in the Bangalore Development Authority Act enjoining that each and every time a site has to be allotted in a private layout sanctioned by the BDA, the said site has to be released by the BDA. Obviously, because sites in private layouts are never in the clutches of BDA and the question of BDA “releasing” the sites does not arise. Therefore, the condition stipulated in the Circular, cannot be legally sustained. [ Para – 5]
[ii] The other requirement of production of “No Objection Certificate” issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, also cannot be legally sustained since there is no provision of law requiring production of “No Objection Certificate” issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies before a document presented Sub-Registrar. [ Para – 6]
[iii] The Circular not published in the Gazette in terms of provisions of Section 22A of the Registration [Karnataka Amendment] Act, 1976 is of no legal effect.. The Circular does not disclose any intelligible different and also does not reveal any public policy being involved in issuing the said Circular. On this ground also the Circular has to be struck down. [ Paras – 8 & 9 ].
[13] This Petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 3000/-.
-
As Upa Lokayuktha G.P. Shivapraksh, who was appointed by Governor after being recommended by Chief Justice for his unshakable Integrity, honesty. During elections to “Board of directors of said Karnataka Employees House Building co-op society”, few contenders Half-Exposed Illegalities committed by Society’s Directors on High Court & Farmers. The rest half, it is humbly submitted was exposed by G.P. Shivaprakash. As Quid-Pro-Quo was found to form ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED JUDICIAL LAYOUT.
[b] Hence he exercised under color of Lokayuktha Act,he stayed High Court Judgment unconstitutionally, illegally, without authority of law. No Statutory Authority nor any Court except High court & Supreme Court can stay High Court orders as per Constitutional scheme of frame work:-KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
Multi Storied Building,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi ,
Bangalore.
Dated: 18.1.2001.
No. COMPT/UPLOK/BCD-64/99-2000 .
PETITIONER: Suo-Moto Investigation.
RESPONDENTANTS: Secretary, Directors, Office Bearers of the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees’ House Building Co-operative Society Limited,
Bangalore and others.
INTERIM ORDER
Whereas on the basis materials placed on record before me alleging malpractice , nepotism and Corruption, etc., against the Directors and office bearers of the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees’ House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore, in short ‘Society’ , a case is registred in COMPT/UPLOK/BCD-64/99-2000 under section 7(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and suo moto investigation is taken up against the Respondents. One of the allegations is that 3 Acres 25 Guntas of the lands reserved for playground and swimming pool have been alienated and the lands reserved for parks have been converted into sites and sold to the persons of their choice. So pending investigation in order to protect the interest of the society and to preserve civic amenity sites, following Interim order is made.
Wherefore, I Justice G.P. Shivaprakash, Upalokayukta, State of Karnataka, in exercise of the power under the karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 pending investigation, do hereby pass this Interim Order restraining the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North (Yelahanka) from registering the sale deeds executed by the Society in respect of sites formed in the Karnataka State Judicial Employees’ Lay-out at Jakkur.
GIVEN UNDER MY SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF THE OFFICE ON THIS 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2001.
-Signed- 18/1
(JUSTICE G.P. SHIVAPRAKASH )
UPALOKAYUKTA
State of Karnataka, Bangalore
-
Next Magic Wand appears from no -where; what was kept CLOSE-TO-CHEST of HONOR & JUSTICE in hiding since 1982 when Society was established i.e., Karnataka Chief Justices Direct Conspiracies with Chief Ministers at least until Past Chief Minister Jagdeesh Shettar, who intentionally knowingly appointed Y. Bhaskar Rao & Upa Lokayukta Mr. Adi:-
Mr. JUSTICE M. RAMAKRISHNA Res: No. 3792, Ist Floor,
CHIEF JUSTICE [ Rtd] 7th Main, HAL IInd Stage,
BANGALORE – 560 038.
Ph. : 5250475
———————————————————————————————————————
Date: 7-3-2001
My dear Justice Shiva Prakash,
Sub: Registration of Document in respect of Site No. 858 – The Karnataka State Judicial Officers House Building Co-op. Society Ltd., Jakkur, Bangalore.
Ref: Your Letter No. Compt Upa Lokayukta BCD.64/99-2000 ARE-2 Dt. 18-1-2001.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
I write to inform you that during my service as Judge of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore, on 4-1-1993, a site was allotted to me in the above layout measuring 80’ x 120’ . I had paid part of the value of the site at that time. As you are aware I was elevated and posted as the Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir where I assumed charge as such on the 26th October, 1994.
As you are also aware that no certain prescribed procedure had been adopted for allotment of sites in the above layout for Hon’ble Judges and other staff members of the Judiciary. However having paid the initial amount, I left Bangalore and began to serve in Jammu and Kashmir High Court. From there I was shifted to Gauhati High Court, Assam, and on retirement on the 14th april 1998 when I came back to Bangalore, to my surprise I was informed by Mr. Shivalingaiah, the President of the Society that on account of certain orders of injunction of certain civil court, the registration of my site was postponed despite the fact that I paid the entire amount of Rs. 4,34,650/-. including registration charges and stamp duty as per law.
Eversince then, the authorities of the Society had been dodging me to register the document of my site. However on persuasion the authorities have passed formal orders of allotment of site bearing 858 in the above layout on 3-1-2001 and an endorsement has been given to me. Therein it is indicated that the entire amount of site value of Rs. 4,34,650/- had been paid, besides indicating that this is as per the proceedings of 4-1-1993. For ready reference, I am enclosing herewith the copy of the allotment letter.
A few days earlier one Sri Ramakrishna an employee of the Society informed me on the phone that the document for purpose of registration of the above site had been prepared and submitted to the Sub Registrar, yelahanka for registration. He however informed me that there appeared to be Stay Order granted by Lokayukta. To ascertain the correctness of the above facts, I personally visited the Sub registrar concerned who on enquiry disclosed me that there had been a general Stay order granted by you on 18th of January 2001. Hence this representation.
My Dear Brother, you are aware with what amount of difficulty we were able to persuade the then Chief Minister of Karnataka to hand over possession of the land to the Office bearers of the above society with the special efforts of Mr. Justice Mohan, the then Chief Justice. You are also aware that at that point of time none of us was able to pay entire value of the site in a lump sum. Hence there had been some delay in that behalf. However , may I now request you to grant exemption from your Stay Order so as to enable the Sub Registrar to register the Document of the site referred to above and oblige. This does not mean that I am coming in the way of your investigation of the Complaint registered, in accordance with law.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
….. Signed…
M. Ramakrishna
Copy to the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore.
for needful action.
…………………………….
On the front page it is hand written as follow:
Sri R. Devdas, Advocate s/o Hon’ble Justice Ramkrishna presented this letter. G.P .. 7/3 .. ARE-2
The copy of allotment letter annexed by Hon’ble Justice is in Kannada at pages 247 & 248 of file number No. COMPT/UPLOK/BCD-64/99-2000. These four pages appear as page Nos. 246 to 249 of certified copies supplied to us on 19/11/12.
Now Sri R. Devdas is Government Advocate appearing in favor of B.D.A / Govt before Ram Mohan Reddy & H.Billappa Bench since decade in WP 40994/2202, WP pil. 7105/2007.
-
Next Magic Wand , it is humbly submitted to the Court for kind perusal as how Complainant was forced by Ram Mohan Reddy, Billappa, Shivaraj Patil, Dattu & whole team of 867 judges against PUBLIC JUSTICE suppressed to see that this Applicant is made to be “SHEEP BEFORE BUTCHER” Mr. Naglingana Gouda Patil :-
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
Multi Storied Building,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi ,
Bangalore,
Dated: 14.3. 2001
No. COMPT/UPLOK/BCD-64/99-2000
PETITIONER
Suo-Moto Investigation.
RESPONDENTANTS
Secretary, Directors, Office Bearers of the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees’ House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore and others.
MODIFIED INTERIM ORDER
READ: INTERIM ORDER No. COMPT/UPLOK/BCD-64/99-2000 Dated 18.1.2001.
———————
WHEREAS, the Interim Order dated 18.1.2001 passed by this Organization is hereby modified to avoid hardship caused to the bonafide allottees, who have not yet obtained the Sale deeds from the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees’ House Building Co-operative Society, Bangalore. to get their sale deeds registered and while at the same time maintaining the civic amenity sites.
In view of the above, I Justice G.P.Shivaprakash, Upalokayukta, Karnataka Sate, Bangalore in exercise of the powers conferred under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 do hereby pass this Modified Interim Order permitting the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North (Yelahanka ) to register the sale deeds executed by the Society in respect of the sites covered under the approved layout plan strictly and maintaining the roads and civic amenity sites intact.
He may register such sale deeds in accordance with law and after being satisfied that the site sought to be conveyed under the sale deed is shown in the lay-out plan and identified. In the event of any doubt, he may seek clarification.
Copy of the approved plan is enclosed.
GIVEN UNDER MY SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF THE OFFICE ON THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2001.
-Signed- 14/3/01
(JUSTICE G.P. SHIVAPRAKASH )
UPALOKAYUKTA,
KARNATAKA STATE, BANGALORE .
-
Rule-Of-Law found no value in front of MAGIC WANDS:- The logic of inverstigation by Karnataka’s much hyped Institution which sent Chief Minister Yeddyurappa & host of IAS, IPS, MLA’s , KAS, IFS etc., to Jail was lost by Lokayukta who had jotted down Points-To-Investigate in COMPT/UPLOK/BCD-64/99-2000:-
N O T E: Answers to be elicited in respect of the Following; from Secretary, Directors, Office Bearers of the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees’ House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore and others :-
1. a). Total number of sites in the layout and their dimensions.
b). Number of sites remaining unallotted in the layout as on date.
2. a). Area earmarked for civic amenities with reference to the layout plan.
b). Areas earmarked for parks and playgrounds.
3. Handing over of layout to the municipality.
See page 29 para 107 and page 35 para 129.
4. In respect of matters at para 135 and 150.
5. Steps taken to provide suitable entry road to the layout.
6. All the documents produced on behalf of the Society to be got marked. -
The Complainant who is Public Servant and is guided by many provisions of law, specially as he serving Karnataka Lokayukta , an Institute which is praised worldwide in hunting down Corrupt Public servants ; has played fraud on this court. Frauds he has played are established by his very office i.e., Karnataka Lokayukta that in fact
[a] Upa Lokayukta G.P. Shivaprakash suo moto commenced investigations vide Complaint No. Compt//UpLok/BCD/64/1999 on 4/12/1999 against “SHIVALINGAIAH, PRESIDENT, KAR.STATE JUDL. DEPT.EMP.HOUSE BLGD.CO-OP.SOCIETY, BANGALORE” under heading “IRREGULARITIES, NEPOTISM AND CORRUPT ACTIVITIES IN ALLOT- MENT OF SITES”.
[b] Up-Lokayukta wrote letter on 6th September, 1999 to B.D.A asking “whether JUDICIAL Layout is Approved by B.D.A and whether B.D.A has handed over Layout to C.M.C, Yelahanka”. As per our Investigations B.D.A replied to Up Lokayukta’s letter on 8th October, 1999 stating “ Neither B.D.A has approved JUDICIAL Layout Plan nor B.D.A has passed any Order to Hand-over JUDICIAL Layout to C.M.C, Yelahanka”. -
Judicial Horizontal & Perpendicular BIAS; disables Applicant to exercise his fundamental Right to move Private Complaint in any Court lower than High Court : Applicant to move even Private Complaint to any Court lower than Karnataka High Court, is estopped for inter alia BIAS, External Judicial Horizontal & Perpendicular Influence over Presiding Judge of this or any lower court., which is another reason for transfer of this case.
-
C.C 8838/2005 against Digvijay Mote, Applicant, his wife Mrs Uma Mote and his son Deepak Mote then a minor is haunting Indian Judiciary like GHOST! :- THE JUDGES WITH PLOTS ; News article published in DNA on 22 November 2011, an Evidence shown at page No. 9 of present Charge Sheet:- But the SCAM of Rs. 8,454 Crores by 867 PROVEN CORRUPT CRIMINAL Judges in Karnataka High Court; which was pushed under carpet by Lokayukta of UPLOK/BCD/64/1999-00 by Upa Lokayukta & this Court in C.C 8838/2005 is haunting Indian Judiciary like GHOST!
The contents is reproduced below for kind perusal of this Court:-
DNA City News. Tuesday, November 22 Nov,2011. Page No. 4:
THE JUDGES WITH PLOTS
As per the documents in DNA’s posession, this is the first list of retired and sitting Judges of Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court were allotted plots violating bye-laws and observations of SC and HC.
Sitting Supreme Court Judge
1. Tirath Singh Thakur .
2. H.L. Dattu
Retired Chief Justices of India
3. M.N. Venkatachalaiah
4. S. Rajendra Babu
Retired Supreme Court Judges
5. K. Jagannath Shetty
6. S. Mohan
7. N. Venkatachala [former Karnataka Lokayukta]
8. G.T. Nanavati
9. Shivaraj Patil [former Karnataka Lokayukta]
10. P. Venkatarama Reddi
11. R.V. Raveendran
Sitting High Court Judges of Karnataka
12. V.G. Sabahit
13. N Kumar
14. Patil Nananath
15. K. Bhaktavatsala
16. Ajit J. Gunjal
17. Mohan Shantan Goudar
18. H.G.Ramesh
19. Abdul Nazeer
20. H.N. Nagmohan Das
21. Manjula Chellur
22. Anand Byra Reddy
23. Ashok B. Hinchingeri
24. V. Jagannathan
25. C.R. Kumaraswamy
Sitting Chief Justice [of Odissa HC]
26. V. Gopala Gowda
-
‘Rule of Law’ is the basic rule of governance of any civilised democratic policy; said Supreme Court of India:- In Re: Arundhati Roy vs Unknown on 6 March, 2002 :-
1. ‘Rule of Law’ is the basic rule of governance of any civilised democratic policy. Our Constitutional scheme is based upon the concept of Rule of Law which we have adopted and given to ourselves. Everyone, whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy of law. Whoever the person may be, however high he or she is, no-one is above the law notwithstanding how powerful and how rich he or she may be. For achieving the establishment of the rule of law, the Constitution has assigned the special task to the judiciary in the country. It is only through the courts that the rule of law unfolds its contents and establishes its concept. For the judiciary to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. After more than half a century of independence, the judiciary in the country is under a constant threat and being endangered from within and without. The need of the time is of restoring confidence amongst the people for the independence of judiciary. Its impartiality and the glory of law has to be maintained, protected and strengthened. The confidence in the courts of justice, which the people possess, cannot, in any way, be allowed to be tarnished, diminished or wiped out by contumacious behavior of any person. The only weapon of protecting itself from the onslaught to the institution is the long hand of contempt of court left in the armoury of judicial repository which, when needed, can reach any neck howsoever high or far away it may be. In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (the alleged contemner) this Court reiterated the position of law relating to the powers of contempt and opined that the judiciary is not only the guardian of the rule of law and third pillar but in fact the central pillar of a democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform it duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise the very corner-stone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society. It is for this purpose that the courts are entrusted with extraordinary powers of punishing those who indulge in acts, whether inside or outside the courts, which tend to undermine the authority of law and bring it in disrepute and disrespect by scandalizing it. When the court exercise this power, it does not do so to vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual judge who is personally attacked or scandalised, but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded.
In this Complaint the Accused have shown least respect or care for Law and such plethora of Judgments; undermining the Confidence of People in Courts
-
Justice V.Ramaswami, Sitting Supreme Court Judge was sent on leave by Chief Justice Of India in 1990:- CJI’s STATEMENT TO THE BAR OF SUPREME COURT, on 20-07-1990. [CHAPTER-7 of GONE AT LAST , a BOOK on V.Ramaswami (Pg. No. 111-114)]
[1] In the beginning of May, 1990, some learned advocates of this Court drew my attention to certain newspapers about the audit report investigating the expenses incurred in furnishing the residence of a former Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, namely, Shri V. Ramaswami, who is now a sitting Judge of this court. I was requested by the learned lawyers to take action suo-motu. The matter was mentioned more than one. On 1st May, 1990. I had received a communication from the editor of a magazine enclosing therewith a copy of April 90 issue of the magazine The Lawyers, stating that it contained the full text of the audit report of the Chandigarh Administration. Theyre after, the learned Attorney General, Sir. Soli Sorabjee, the former Attorney General, Sri Parasaran, Mr. Venugopal, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, and Dr. Y.S. Chitale, former President of the Supreme Court Bar association, also met me and drew my attention to these reports and expressed concern on the contents of the publications. The Union Minister of Law and Justice called on me and expressed the concern of the members of parliament about the alleged extravagance by Justice Ramaswami and the contents of the report, while working as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Sharing their concern, I had told the Law Minister and have since assured the learned Attorney General and other members of the Bar that I would look into the matter.
[2] Legally and constitutionally the Chief Justice of India, as such, has no right or authority to inquire into the conduct of a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court. However, the Chief justice of India, as the head of the Judicial Family has, I believe, the duty and the responsibility to maintain the judicial propriety and attempts to secure the confidence of the public in the working of the judicial process.
[3] This was an unprecedented and an embarrassing situation. It called for caution and establishment of a salutary convention. I have obtained from the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court the necessary papers.
There are three kinds of reports:
(i) Reports submitted by the Internal Audit Cell of the High Court:
(ii) Fact-finding Reports submitted by District and Sessions Judges (Vigilance) both of Punjab and Haryana; and
(iii) Reports and audit-paras submitted by the official of the Accountant Generals office to the High Court for reply. The reports and audit paras last mentioned seek clarifications and justifications in respect of the transactions which prima facie appeared to be irregular.
[4] I have looked into it and then arrived at a certain tentative impression it is not necessary to recapitulate in detail, the alleged irregularities I understand from the authorities of the High Court that the officials involved in the alleged irregularities have been suspended and departmental inquiries have been instituted against them. The final result of these departmental inquiries is awaited. In the meantime, I took Brother Ramaswami into confidence and made known to him the contents of the audit reports with a view to ascertaining his position in relation to the disclosures made in the reports. He has given his version. I have also requested Brother Ramaswami to communicate his views to the Registrar, High Court of Punjab and Haryana so that the High Court may reply to the audit objections raised by the Government.
[5] I understand that the High Court had directly sought Brother Ramaswamis clarifications with regard to certain audit objection and he has written to the officers of the High Court in this behalf. The proceedings, as mentioned before, against some of the officers of High Court on alleged irregularities are still pending. In respect of some of the irregularities which I have considered and the tendency of the departmental inquiries against the suspended officers, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate to wait for a closer examination of the replies to the audit objections and the various queries submitted by the High Court to Brother Ramaswami before one can come to a final conclusion.
[6] The processes initiated for unearthing facts relating to the alleged irregularities should be completed to determine whether rules have been breached. Have asked the Registrar of the Supreme Court to write to the Registrar of the High Court to complete the departmental inquiries that are to be conducted in respect of the alleged irregularities committed by the officers and employees of the High Court, and a report of the same should be forwarded to em. I have also personally requested the Chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in respect of the same. I have also directed the Registrar of the Supreme Court to write to the Accountant General (Audit}, Haryana (U. T. Sub-office) to come to a final opinion on the audit objections and determine whether any amount has been illegally or improperly withdrawn and whether the advance taken by Brother Ramaswami under the rules, is justified or regularized. I have personally advised Brother Ramaswami to check if there had been any excessive drawings of account of salary, LTC etc., and if so, to voluntarily repay such drawings which are contrary to rules. It must be reiterated that the audit objections by the Government should also be expedited and disposed of I have directed the Registrar of this Court to so write to the appropriate Government to expedite the inquiry. Maturity requires that we do not jump to conclusion unless the facts are ascertained and the questions involved are decided.
[7] The Supreme Court must uphold the rule of law. It is, therefore, necessary that those who uphold the rule of law must live by law and judges must, therefore, be obliged to live according to law. The law, procedure and the norms applicable in this case, enjoin that the expenses incurred by the Court for the Judges must be according to the rules, norms and the practice. No man is above law or the rules. The Judges either of the Supreme Court or of the High Courts and the Chief Justices are all subject to the rule of law and procedure like any other citizen of this country and must abide by the norms and regulation prescribed inasmuch as these and to the extent are applicable to them I always thought this was clear and needed no reiteration. We must, therefore, ensure that there is no conduct of the Judges, which affects the faith of the people that Judges do not live according to law. Judges cannot afford to be involved in disputes, who have to determine the question whether the Judges while functioning as Judges or Chief Justices have attempted to subvert the law either designedly or in utter negligence or recklessness.
[8] In this matter, the questions involved are, namely,
(i) whether the Chief Justice was entitled to the expenses of his telephone at Madras because Chandigarh was declared a disturbed area;
(ii) Whether the Chief Justice was obliged to obtain leave to avail the facility of LTC;
(iii) Whether the Chief Justice was entitled to direct the cars to be taken to madras when he was on vacation from Chandigarh for the reasons mentioned by him;
(iv) Whether the silver maces ordered by the High Court have been done at the rate similar to the rate applied in respect of those supplied to the Madras high Court, and
(v) Whether even though the Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court did not approve the idea of having maces for each individual Judge, the Chief Justice was entitled to direct the purchase of these maces. Theses are the matters on which interpretation of the rules or on the permission or relaxation of rules, certain consequences will follow, and if the Chief justice was not so entitled or these could not be sanctioned as has been done under the circumstances mentioned in the aforesaid objections and communications, reimbursement or recovery would be directed. These matters, therefore, will have to await adjudication by the appropriate authorities, namely, the Government and the sanctioning authorities dealing with audit objections, in respect of the permissions sought. Though one would like to think that there has been extravagance and ostentiousness but these by the selves do not involve determining questions of moral or legal impropriety of a judge functioning as a Judge in the Court.
[9] But there are some other aspects involved in this matter, namely, the questions of not accounting for all the furnitures or items that were in the residence and office of the Chief Justice, the alleged replacement of superior quality items by inferior quality items, the missing items and the splitting up of the bills in order to have the sanction of the authorities or to conform to the rules, are the matters which are also pending determination and adjudication.
[10] Involvement in any investigation on the conduct of a sitting Supreme Court Judge on such matters as aforesaid is embarrassing in the circumstances and the background in which these questions have arisen in the instant case. For one who should attempt to uphold the rule of law, it is embarrassing to be involved in such a dispute. But no final decision on this aspect can be arrived at until the investigations and inquiries are completed. I have, on these aspects after looking into the matter and the points involved, no doubt that those who aspire to uphold the rule of law must strive to live according to law and they necessarily expose themselves to the danger of perishing by law. I am aware and deeply conscious that in certain circumstances somebody may be a victim of certain situation. I was constrained, in those circumstances, to advise Brother Ramaswami to desist from discharging judicial functions so long as the investigations continued and his name was cleared on this aspect.
[11] I wrote to Brother Ramaswami on 18th July 1990 rendering my aforesaid advice. I have also conveyed to him my anguish in tendering this advice and I have requested him to please be on leave until the investigations on the aforesaid conduct are completed.
[12] On 18th July, 1990 after receipt of my letter, Brother Ramaswami has applied for leave for six weeks in the first instance with effect from 23rd July, 1990. I have directed the office to process his application for leave.
[13] Since I had assured the learned Attorney General, the Law Minister, the president of the Bar Association and other that I will look into it, I thought I must covey to you result of my looking into it. -
C.C 8838/2005 is haunting Indian Judiciary like GHOST-2!:- PLOT THICKENS MY LORD ; News article published in DNA on 23 November 2011, an Evidence shown at page No. 10 of present Charge Sheet:- But the SCAM of Rs. 8,454 Crores by 867 PROVEN CORRUPT CRIMINAL Judges in Karnataka High Court; which was pushed under carpet by Lokayukta of UPLOK/BCD/64/1999-00 by Upa Lokayukta & this Court in C.C 8838/2005 and now by this court is haunting Indian Judiciary like GHOST!
The contents is reproduced below for kind perusal of this Court:-
DNA City News. Tuesday, November 23 Nov,2011: Page No. 4
PLOT THICKENS, MY LORD
With this final list, DNA concludes its expose of retired and sitting Judges of Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court, who were allotted plots allegedly by violating bye-laws and and observations of the Judicial system.
RETIRED CHIEF JUSTICES OF HIGH COURT
-
D.M. Chandrashekhar
-
V.S. Malimath
-
M Rama Jois
-
K.S. Swamy
-
S.A. Hakeem
-
N.Y. Hanumathappa
-
K.H.N. Kuranga
-
Kumar Raja Ratnam
-
Subray Rama Nayak
-
Samindar Rudrayya Bannurmath
RETIRED JUDGES OF HIGH COURT
-
B Padmaraj
-
Bhimrayappa K Sanglad
-
M.S. Patil
-
D.P. HIremath
-
Smt. Yashoda Doddakale Gowda
-
S. Venkatraman
-
G.P. Shivaprakash
-
M.B. Vishwanath
-
Kadambadi Jagannath Shetty
-
G. Patri Basavan Goud
-
Smt. S.A. Laxmeshwar
-
L. Srinivas Reddy
-
B. Jagannath Hegde
-
P. Krishnamurthy
-
R.V.Vasantha Kumar
-
M.S. Rajendra Prasad
-
Shashidhar Bhimrao Majagi
-
C. Shivappa
-
A.J. Sadashiva
-
H.G.Balakrishna
-
Mir Abdul Majid @ M.M. Mirdhe
-
S.R. Rajshekhar Murthy
-
D.R. Vittal Rao
-
P.K. Shyam Sundar
-
P.A.Kulkarni
-
R. Ramkrishna
-
K.S. Puttaswamy
-
K. Shivashankar Bhat
-
H.N. Narayan
-
Smt. Janaki G. Sabahit
-
ChandraShekhraiah
-
Gopichand Bharuka
-
R. Gururajan
-
N.D. Venkatesh
-
Justice K. Ramanna
-
R.G.Vaidyanatha
-
V.P. Mohan Kumar
-
J Eswara Prasad
-
V.K. Singhal
-
B.N.Krishnan
-
S.R. Venkatesh Murthy
-
B.N. Mallikarjuna
-
Chidanand Ullal
-
K.B.Siddappa
-
Ajit C. Kabbin
-
Justice Chinnappa
-
On the contrary we have FEW GODLY JUDGES, TOO :- SC bench headed by new CJI slams decision of just-retired CJI Kabir: The orders passed by the bench headed by the ex-CJI helped the company dodge depositing Rs 100 crore as penalty that Himachal Pradesh high court had slapped on it in May last year for misrepresenting facts for securing clearances to set up a cement plant
[1] NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented development, a bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam strongly disapproved of a series of orders passed by a bench headed by his immediate predecessor Altamas Kabir granting relief to Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL) by virtually sitting in appeal over the order of another bench of the apex court which had declined to give concession to the construction and infrastructure group.
[2] The orders passed by the bench headed by the ex-CJI helped the company dodge depositing Rs 100 crore as penalty that Himachal Pradesh high court had slapped on it in May last year for misrepresenting facts for securing clearances to set up a cement plant.
[3] While an SC bench headed by Justice A K Patnaik in November last year refused to stay the HC order and asked the company to meet the deadline for depositing the penalty, the bench led by ex-CJI Kabir passed orders enabling the company to defer paying the fine, before staying the HC order.
[4] “We do not approve of the manner in which the interim orders came to be passed. We do not sit on appeal over orders passed by a coordinate bench. These orders should not have been passed,” a bench of CJI Sathasivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi said on Wednesday as it rejected JAL’s plea for extension of deadline for payment of Rs 25 crore as this year’s installment for the Rs 100 crore penalty.
[5] Despite senior advocate A M Singhvi making attempts to defend JAL, the bench of Justices Sathasivam and Gogoi made no secret of its strong displeasure over the manner in which the matter had been taken up and interim orders passed, which were in direct conflict with earlier orders of the apex court.
[6] “We are clear in our mind about what has happened,” the bench said when Singhvi alleged that Sanjay Parikh, the counsel for the NGO which challenged JAL’s cement plant, was trying to confuse the matter by referring to different orders.
[7] Appearing before Justices Sathasivam and Gogoi, Parikh narrated the sequence of orders and wondered whether the ex-CJI headed benches could have sat in appeal over the orders passed by a coordinate bench. -
Both the Complainants in 2004 & 2011 have abused & continue to abuse their close proximity with Judiciary and their being Fellow-Members of Corrupt 867 Judges & Lokayuktas with Presiding-Judges of this Court.
Then Judge Sri. K. Palakshappa, S.L.F.No. 2994 & in present case Patil Nagalinganagowda, S.L.F.No. 3262 with SPP S Doreraju, Police, High Court Sitting, Retired, Promoted Judges, Supreme Court Judges H.L. Dattu, T.S. Thakur & V. Gopal Gowda, Santosh Hegde, Ram Mohan Reddy etc., who are members & illegal beneficiaries of sites in JUDICIAL Layout formed by Karnataka Employees HBCS or else where .
That the Learned Judge is Mr. Nagalingana Gouda is member of “Karnataka Employees HBCS” by S.L.F. No. 3262. Similarly all the Registrars & Registrar General are members of said Society. They are Registrar General Shri P.Krishna Bhat , S.L.F. No. 3197; Registrar [Adminstration] K.S.Mudgal, by SLF No.3100 ; Registrar [Judicial] SLF No. 1285 and Registrar [Vigilance] K. Somshekhar SLF No. 3251. Shri Pradeep Waingankar Registrar [Judicial] SLF No.2998; hence transfer the Case to High Court to initiate action against persons who are perpetrating crimes under color of High Court or Registrars who are involved in Scam . -
Applicant, when Learned Judge is Mr. Nagalingana Gouda failed to inform me that he is member of said Society. I had to bring to the notice that he is member on 10th october, 2012.
In the said application brought to the notice of court the following, directly / in-directly:-
[a] that the complaint is illegible and impossible by any common person to read it or understand it .
[b ] that the I.O might have been influenced by Powerful persons who happen to be members of said Society as sitting / retired Judges of Supreme Court, Lokayukta, Karnataka High Court Judges, Judicial Officers from across Karnataka, Law Secretaries etc., [ c ] That applicant is being falsely framed by Lokayukta P.R.O., [d] That applicant is not going to get fair & impartial trial of case which is his Birthright & Fundamental Right [e] that Judge is being influenced by extraneous reasons than merits of case [f] that there is “NO EVIDENCE to Prove Applicant’s GUILT of ALLEGED CRIMES beyond REASONABLE DOUBTS [g] that there is Bias, likelihood of bias for acted in bad faith and framed Charges against Applicant, without application of judicial mind to the evidences provided by I.O in charge sheet. -
Cr. P. C Section 39 reads thus “39. Public to give information of certain offences.
(1) Every person, aware of the Commission of, or of the intention of any other person to commit, any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely :- (viii) section 409 (that is to say, offence relating to criminal breach of trust by public servant, etc.); Shall, in the absence of any reasonable excuse, the burden of proving which excuse shall lie upon the person so aware, forthwith give information to the nearest Magistrate or police officer of such Commission or intention; (2) For the purposes of this section, the term “offence” includes any act committed at any place out of India, which would constitute an offence if committed in India. Accordingly this information is being given to this Court. -
The Learned Judge Mr. Nagalingana Gowda failed to develop confidence in this applicant and made this applicant to lose confidence in this court for following reasons; for which reasons inter alia this application is moved:-
[a] He acted contrary to law:- 479. Cases in which Judge or Magistrate is personally interested:- No Judge or Magistrate shall, except with the permission of the court to which an appeal lies from his court, try or commit for trial any case to or in which he is a party, or personally interested, and no Judge or Magistrate shall hear an appeal from any judgment or order passed or made by himself.
[b] He failed to inform this applicant that “there shall be Bias in hearing the Case”, because of his being member of said Housing Society.
[c] He failed to dis-engage from being hearing this case as he is member in personal capacity of “Karnataka Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Karnataka High Court, Bangalore”. -
RAPE of COURTS by CORRUPT IMMORAL NEPOTIC JUDGES Vs Few GODly JUDGES; Corrupt CJI Kabeer Vs Three Meritorious Judges:-
[1] Three Chief Justices found “not fit” for elevation to SC, ignored by Collegium; Ignored CJ Bhattacharya creates ripples by writing hard hitting letter to CJI: NEW DELHI: If any Judge is believed to be corrupt, he should be named in public said Chief Justice of India on 26th Nov. 2011 in Law Day speech and also said take stand and tell his name to chief Justice.”
[2] Former Chief Justice SH Kapadia in his hard hitting speech said Judiciary too should be subjected to fair criticism. CJI said that every Judge in India is a Public servant and thus accountable to public and can’t claim immunity of his misconduct.
[3] The appointment of Judges by collegiums is not inspiring confidence amongst general public. The general choice is entirely subjective and preference class is Judges relative whether he has practice at bar or not; kinsmanship is a qualification these days, thus widely condemned and another such cat was out of the bag recently.
[4] Since the Govt. has absolutely no say in the appointment which is entirely against the Democratic structure. It is govt. which is accountable to the people and to ignore its say is not a correct view point which needs to be corrected and National judicial commission or a Judges appointment committee should be formed.
[5] The news which is creating ripples in the Judicial institution is a letter of Gujarat Chief Justice Bhasker Bhattacharya written to the President of India, Prime Minister of India and Chief Justice of India.[6] The letter has exposed the collegium system . The Chief Justice of Gujarat claims that he has been victimized by Supreme Court collegium by not recommending his name for elevation as a Supreme Court judge along with two other Judges namely Chief Justice Barren Ghosh and Justice Mohit S Shah, who all have been ignored.
[7] Chief Justice Mohit S Shah of Bombay High Court, Chief Justice Bhattacharya of Gujrat High Court and Chief Justice Barin Gosh of Uttrakhand who were the three senior Chief Justices were ignored and were not elevated as Supreme Court Judges.
[8] Reportedly Chief Justice of India Altams Kabir wrote a letter to Prime Minister of India conveying unanimous decision of Supreme Court collegium for appointment Justice Kurien and Justice Pinaki Ghose to Supreme Court superseding these three Judges.
[9] …” The collegium has unanimously taken the view that they are not suitable to hold the office of Supreme Court Judge and their elevation as such would prove to be counter productive and not conducive to administration of Justice” said Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir in one of his letters, reportedly.
[10] ..”The collegium has not recommended the names of these three Chief Justices for good reasons and after taking into consideration all relevant factor, including their merit ability and seniority at all levels.” it said.
[11] Chief Justice Gujarat High Court Bhattacharya has written a 10 pages letter to Chief Justice of India and others.
[12] In the said letter Chief Justice of Gujarat demanded to show “the material” which led the collegium of Supreme court to take adverse decision on his” competency and character”.
[13] Chief Justice Bhattacharya wrote to CJI Kabir; claiming real reason for being denied place in SC was opposition to elevation of Kabir’s sister.
[14] Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya has complained that Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir — who retires on July 18 — blocked his elevation to the Supreme Court earlier this year because, as a member of the collegium of the Calcutta High Court, he had opposed the appointment of CJI Kabir’s lawyer sister to the Bench, a decision he said was tantamount to “rape” of the court.
[15] Exactly one week before the tenure of the current Chief Justice of India, Altamas Kabir, is to end, a letter written by the current Chief Justice of Gujarat, Justice Bhattacharya, has raised serious questions about how judges are appointed to the higher judiciary. The letter, excerpts of which were published by a national daily, was presumably written after the Supreme Court collegium rejected the elevation of Justice Bhattacharya stating that such an elevation would be, “counter-productive and not conducive to administration of justice.”
[16] A week after the collegium’s views were made public, on March 19, 2013 Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya wrote a 10-page letter to the CJI, the President of India and the country’s Prime Minister.
[17] In his letter, Justice Bhattacharya has demanded to be shown “the material” which led the collegium to take a decision on his, “competence and character”. He also claims that the “real” reason for the collegium’s comments was the fact that he had opposed the elevation of CJI Kabir’s sister, Shukla Kabir Sinha, to the Calcutta High Court.
[18] Apart from the veiled claim that it was this opposition which prevented Justice Bhattacharya from reaching the Supreme Court, what also deserves attention are the objections raised by Justice Bhattacharya to the elevation of the CJI’s sister. These objections provide some idea as to what factors are considered while appointing members of the Bar to the higher judiciary.
[19] For instance, one of the points raised by Justice Bhattacharya relate to the annual salary drawn by Justice Sinha, who was 58 years old when applying for the post of judge. He writes,
[20] In my view as an advocate who at the age of 58 years is just capable of earning a net amount of Rs. 88,000 from practice should in no case be recommended for judgeship. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a High Court chaprasi gets more than Rs. 13,000 per month as salary, which is equivalent to Rs. 1,56,000 per annum which is almost double the income of Mrs Shukla Kabir Sinha.
[21] Justice Bhattacharya also questions the time taken by Justice Sinha to complete her education, noting that Sinha took,
[22] “Four years for passing BA examination …. and five years for getting MA degree after graduation, although the usual time taken for clearing these examinations is three years and two years respectively”
[23] Another point raised by Justice Bhattacharya was the age of CJI Kabir’s sister; at the age of 59, Sinha would have a tenure of barely three years in the High Court (in fact, she retired earlier this year). Such an elevation, according to Justice Bhattacharya, would “..give a wrong signal and people would lose faith in the judiciary and the collegium system.”
[24] He also went on to write that failure to raise any objections against Sinha’s elevation would amount to, “closing my eyes while my mother was being raped.”
[25] “I don’t have a personal inimical feeling against Mrs Sinha who is just like my sister… However, as I treat the HC to which I belong for the full time-being as my mother, I earnestly believed that to elevate Mrs Sinha at the age of 59, there is no instance in the past of elevation of a Judge from the Bar at the age of 59 years… would give a wrong signal and people would lose faith in the judiciary and the collegium system… For the above reasons, I made my observations which, however, didn’t get the approval of the Chief Justice of the Calcutta HC and of Judge Pinaki Chandra Ghose, who was the other member of the collegium and who has superseded me this time,” the letter reads. “So far as I can remember, Justice Pinaki Ghose in his recommendation observed that if Shukla Kabir is elevated as a judge, she would be an asset to the judiciary.”
[26] Justice Bhattacharya has also written, “When time came for selection of Smt Shukla Kabir Sinha as a Judge of the HC, I was pressured to agree to such a proposal as a member of the collegium, but I thought it would amount to committing rape of the Calcutta HC, which was like my mother and if I didn’t raise any objections that would amount to closing my eyes while my mother was being raped. As a result, I used rather strong words so that by looking at the nature of words used by me, the person responsible for sending such a recommendation would have a second thought… Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful in resisting the rape of my mother in spite of my earnest endeavour. However, at the time of my death, I will not repent that I ever compromised with wrong for the sake of my career.”
[27] On September 13, 2010, the CJI’s sister, Shukla Kabir Sinha, was appointed to the bench of the Calcutta HC after the HC collegium ignored Justice Bhattacharya’s written submission on why she should not be appointed to the post.
[28] CJI Kabir — then a senior judge of the apex court — was a member of the SC collegium that considered the HC’s recommendation. However, sources said he had recused himself from the meeting.
[29] Reportedly the Prime Minister’s spokesperson said: “The letter was addressed to the Chief Justice of India, and the PMO had no role to play in it as appointments of judges are decided by the collegium.”
[30] Justice Bhattacharya has asked that his letter be shown to all members of the collegium. He has also requested that he be shown “the material which led you (CJI Kabir) to take such a decision regarding my competence and character”. He has said that he will resign if he is given “justifiable reasons”.
[31] Justice Bhattacharya has also given his reasons for opposing the CJI’s sister’s name for judgeship, including what he has called her poor practice, reflected in her annual income-tax statements.
[32] Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya also referred to “another recent incident” that he says could have made the collegium reject him.
[33] According to Justice Bhattacharya, a former Gujarat HC Chief Justice who is now in the Supreme Court withdrew an excess amount of Rs 54,650 as TA/DA which is not permissible without furnishing proof.
[34] “There are several other honourable judges who had withdrawn similar amounts in excess of the rules. After receiving such clarification from the Centre, I, as the chief justice of the Gujarat HC, placed the matter in the Standing Committee of seven judges and they unanimously resolved that the honourable judges… should pay back the excess amount,” his letter reads.
[35] As per the letter, when the judge, who is now in the Supreme Court, was requested to repay the excess amount, his office wrote to the HC registrar telling him “not to make any such unnecessary and unwarranted correspondence.”
[36] “As your younger brother, I seek advice from you as to what should be my duty as the present CJ if I find that a former Chief Justice of the High Court who is now judge of the SC is found to have withdrawn excess amount not intentionally but due to some ambiguity in existing rules?” the CJ asks the CJI.
[37] These controversies shatter the faith of the common man in the appointment process for High Court and Supreme Court Judges and it is high time that the appointment of Judges goes in the hands of a committee or a National judicial Commission.
Courtesy: News Article http://www.journeyline.in/newsdet.aspx?q=27039
-
A] 867 CORRUPT 867 JUDGES & LOKAYUKTAS at the MERCY of Dismissed Employee of High Court K.Sippegoda:-
K.Sippegowda is present President of Karnataka Judicial Department Employees HBC Society, High Court. As per Bye laws of Society he & Board of Directors can do & Un-Do any thing and every thing against Judges; who claim that THEY HAVE DONE NO WRONGS; including cancelling their site allotment, forfeiting Bungalows! This is harsh reality, which this Applicant wish to abort such TRAGEDY & TRAVESTY of JUSTICEs, which is possible only in High Court u/s 407 and u/s 406 of Cr.P.C in Supreme Court of India; for which this Applicant craves leave of this Court to allow in larger Public Interest.
39-B: Karnataka Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Karnataka High Court, Bangalore consists of regular members 3,283 & 1407 Associate members; in total 4,690. All are Members of Indian Judicial Fraternity viz., Supreme Court of India, Chief Justices of different High courts of India, Karnataka High court Sitting Judges, all Karnataka High court Registras, all Lokayuktas & Upa Lokayuktas since 1996, about 500 Judicial Officers spread across Karnataka, Law Secretaries, most of High Court ministerial staff & also of other courts across Karnataka.
39-C: Karnataka upa lokayukta was investigating vide UPLOK/BCD/641999-00, UPLOK/BCD/….. & UPLOK/BCD/64/1999-00 ; wherein it came to know that Society & its members are involved CORRUPTION, NEPOTISM, IRREGULAR & ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES and also that all Sale Deeds in r/o JUDICIAL Layout were found to be forged , in Criminal Contempt of High Court Judgments. Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir through his letter to G.P.Shivapraksh, the the Upa Lokayukta of Criminal Conspiracies of “Karnataka High Court Judges including chief justice S. Mohan in ILLEGALLY GETTING POSESSION of LANDS through Chief Minister late S. Bangarappa. Upa Lokayukta laso came to know that 320 sites are formed in un-acquiredd lands in 37 acres of Poor Farmers, with the threat of “PRESENCE OF LARGE NUMBERS OF POWERS THAT BE MANNING INDIAN JUDICIARY.
39-D: NAMES of POWERS THAT BE MANNING INDIAN JUDICIARY
Prominent amongst them, as could be traced by this P.U.C pass knowledge is 691; which is as follows:
39-E: Office of Karnataka Advocate General, SPP, High Court Police:
-
S Doreraju,Police, High Court Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka. Bangalore -560001. SLF No. 0441.
-
A.H.Naik, Deputy Director of Prosecution, Cauveri Bhavan, 6th Floor, Bangalore-9. SLF No. 1263 [Page.071].
-
H Veeriaha, Police Inspector, High Court of Karnataka. SLF No. 0335.
-
K. Diwakar Shetty, Police Inspector,
High Court of Karnataka. SLF No. 0336. -
The present Complainant’s father Syed Rehamatulla, SLF No. 0516, F/O Sri. Syed
Rizathullaha, International Corruption Hunters
Alliance, Washington, U.S.A.,; Volunteer” and Public Relation Officer Cum
Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Karnataka Lokayukta, M.S.
Building,Bangalore- 560 001. Mylaraiah,
Advocate, No. 315, II Floor, Kurubara Sangha Building, Gandhi
Nagar, Bangalore. 560 009. SLF No. 0967 . -
S. Shankara, Adminstrative Officer, Advocate General Office, Bangalore-1 .
SLF No. 1270. -
N. Krishnappa, 61, Shamanna Garden, Old Mill Road, St. Thomas Town Post,
Bangalore-84. SLF No. 1276 , suspected to be Police Officer. -
S. Shankarappa, Puuttiahnapalya, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore Dist.. SLF No. 1682 .
-
H.P. Leeladhar, [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 548]. High Court Advocate.
-
Keshav Reddy [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 709 = Govt. Advocate, High Court.
-
K.M. Nataraj. [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 733 . Former Addl. Advocate General.
-
Basavprabhu S. Patil,[Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 1187 Senior Advocate of Supreme Court & son of Justice Shivaraj Patil
-
Dr. Sharan S.Patil [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 1188 & son of
Justice Shivaraj Patil
39-F: Karnataka High Court [Registrars of HC], Etc
1. R.C. Ijari,
[Ex. Regisrar General] No. 25, 1st Cross,8th Main,Vinayaka Nagar, Bangalore.
560052. SLF No. 0773, [Pg No.044].2. K. Veerabhdraswamy, Deputy Registrar, High Court of Karnataka.Bangalore -560 001. SLF No..0780, [Pg No.044].
3. T. Abdul Mujeeb,Registrar
[Judicial ], Karnataka High Court,Bangalore -560 001. SLF No.0832
[Page.047 ].4. J. Channaveerappa, No. 3501, 3rd Main, M C C ‘B’ Block, Davangere-4.(ii)
Additional Registrar, Karnataka high Court. SLF No. 848 [Pg. No. 048].5. S. Indudhar, Registrar, C A T, BDA Complex, Indira Nagar, Bangalore. 560 038. SLF No. 954 [Pg. No. 054].
6. Kenchegowda, Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. SLF No. 1108 [Page.062].
7. C Chandramallegowda,, Registrar, Small Cause Court, Bangalore-9. SLF No.
1267 [Page.071].8. R. Chandrashekhar, Munsiff & JMFC, HOLE NARASI PURA, Hassan Dist. SLF No. 1285 [Page.072]. Registrar [Administration ] of Karnataka High Court,, Karnataka High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.
9. Raghvendra Upadhya, Judgement writer, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-1. SLF No. 1347 . P.S. To H.C CJ suspected; who is allotted with site in Land which is neither acquired
nor in the possession of Society; but is in litigation.10. B.N.Balakrishna, City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore-9. SLF No. 1386.
11.Pradeep Dattatreya Waingankar. S.L.F.No. 2998. District Judge. Bangalore. Presently
Registrar [Judicial], High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-560001.12.P. Krishna Bhat, S.L.F.No. 3197[Page.281 ], (i) District & Sessions Judge, Rural District Court, Bangalore-9 (ii) Presently working as Registrar General of Karnataka High Court,Karnataka High Court, BANGALORE 560001.
13.Sri. K.B. Chengappa,S.L.F.No. 3218 [Page.282 ],,Additional Registrar,Dharwad High Court Bench, Dharwad. Karnataka.
14.Veeranna G. Tigadi, S.L.F.No. 3282, [Page.285 ],Registrar,[Vigilance], High court, Bangalore-1.
39-G: Karnataka High Court Sitting Judges:-
1. Justice K. Sreedhar Rao, SLF No. 1580 (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-1, (ii) No…. , Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
2. Sri. K.L. Majunath, S.L.F.No. 3000 . Judge. High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-560001. (i) No. 2118/B, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
3. N. Kumar, S.L.F.No. 2989. Judge. High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-560001.
4. Justice N.K. Patil, S.L.F.No. 2955. High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-560001.
5. Hon’ble Dr. Justice K.Bhakthavatsala
6. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shantan Goudar Mohan Mallikarjunagoudar , S.L.F.No. No.3169 Judge, Karnataka High Court, (ii) No. 205 , Judicial Layout-II,Talghattpura , Kanakpura Road,
BANGALORE .7. Justice H.G.Ramesh, Employee Membership No. 2510 [Pg. 241],(i) Judge, High Court, Bangalore- 560 001. (ii) No. 981/B, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
8. Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.Abdul Nazeer,
9. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy
10.Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.Billappa
11.Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.N.Nagamohan Das
12.Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy
13.Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bangreppa Hinchigeri
14. Sri. Kumara Swamy C.R , S.L.F.No. 3259. (i) Principal District Judge, District Judges Quarters, Hassan-573201. (ii)Sitting Judge of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore-1(iii) No.
176, Judicial Layout-II,Talghattpura , Kanakpura Road, BANGALORE .15. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jawad Rahim.
16. Sri. Arvind S. Pachpure, S.L.F.No. 3005 [Page.269 ],Registrar [Vigilance] , High Court of Karnataka,Bangalore-560001.
17. Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Kempanna.
18.Indrakala B.S, SLF No. 2887. District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
39-H: Board of Directors of Karnataka State JUDICIAL Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Karnataka high Court, Bangalore-560 001.
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S.Building, Bangalore.
NO.COMPT:UPLOK:BCD-64/99-2000/ARE-2
Date: 14-03-2002
E N D O R S E M E N T
Sub: Allegations against the Secretary / President / Director, Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-op. Society Ltd, Bangalore – reg.
With reference to the above subject I am to intimate that The Hon’ble Upalokayukta has passed the order in this case. The same is extracted as below:-
“ On suo-moto investigation, certain allegations made against the office bearers of Co-Op. Society was being examined..
This matter has been pending for almost three three years. I mainly concerned to preserve parks and playgrounds and other civic amenity sites for the common good of the residents of the locality.
Now, I find that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this matter pending. Investigation discontinued. File”.
…………Signed…… 13/3
G.P. ShivaprakashUpalokayukta
This is for your information.
…..Signed …. 15/03/02
( C.Y. ILLUR )
Addl. Registrar Enquiries -2
Karnataka Lokayukta,
To, The Secretary, Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-op. Society Limited, High Court Building,BANGALORE.
Contemnors of Karnataka High Court Orders viz., “Board of Directors of Karnataka State JUDICIAL Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Karnataka high Court, Bangalore-560 001” in CCC 87/2004 in allotting sites to H.L. Dattu & S.R. Nayak & 15 others who were allotted with sites in GANESHA TEMPLE SITE of 195’ x 200’ ; as RESPONDENTS:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPT
EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE – 560 001.
Represented by Board of Directors:-
[2] C M BASAVARAYA, Registrar General, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01.
[3] C SHIVALINGAIAH, PRESIDENT, CONSUMER FORUM, Founder
& Ex-President,
[4] M RUDRAIAH, ADVOCATE, VICE PRESIDENT. BANGALORE-65.
[5] KEMPA THIMMAIAH, TREASURER, S.D.A., C.M.M. COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-52.
[6] D B DEVAGIRIKAR, Assistant Registrar, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01.
[7] N SHIVANNA, DIRECTOR, ASST. REGISTRAR, Karntaka High Court.
BANGALORE-1
[8] N LINGAIAH, SECTION OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
[9] S BASAVARAJU, SHERISTEDAR, CENTRAL PROCESS NAZAR OFFICE,
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-9.
[10]H C PUTTASWAMY, FDA CITY CIVIL COURT, COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-9.
[11] B S SHANKARAMBHA, CHIEF SHERISTEDAR JUDICIAL MAGISTRATES COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-52.
[12] K SIPPEGOWDA, Present President, COURT OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
AND PRESIDENT, KARNATAKA STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, CUBBANN PARK, BANGALORE-1.
BANGALORE.
[13] V NARAYANAPPA, ASST REGISTRAR, Karntaka High Court. BANGALORE-1
[14] MALLAIAH, COURT OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
[15]P SRINIVAS, COURT OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01.
[16] G S SHIVAKUMAR, FDA, HIGH COURT OF KARNAKTAKA, KGID BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.
39-I: Judges on Deputed to Karnataka Department of Law & Parliamentary Affairs, Legal Opinion, Legislature Secretaries, Government Department Legal advisors, Vidhan Soudha. Bangalore-1
1. Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, Deputy Secretary, Law Department, Vidhana Soudha,Bangalore.560001. SLF No.0966 [Page.054 ],[Present BBMP /UD. Adv. in 40994/02]
2. G.K. Boregowda, Deputy Secretary, Law Department,Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore. 560 001.SLF No. 1117 [Page.063].
3. A.N. Vujjanaradhya, Special Secretary, Law & Parliamentary Affairs, Vidhana soudha, Bangalore-1. SLF No. 1296 [Page.073].
4. D’souza Robinson, Additional Secretary,D.L.P.A & P.S. to The Minister of Labour, Bangalore-1. SLF.No.1303 [Page.073] [Built house in Site / Land of land. Yet in Litigation in 2013 !]
5. Ashok kumat J. Dhole, Addl. Secretary Legal Cell,Karnataka Bhavan, No. 10, Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. 110 021. SLF No.1515[Pg. No.085].
6. S.B.Chanal, Additional secretary, Law Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-1. SLF No.1560 [Pg. No.087].
7. M. Ramesh Rao, Under Secretary, Room No. 36A,Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-1. SLF No. 1585 [Pg. No.089].
8. H.M. Bharatesh, Civil Judge, Mysore. SLF No. 1651 [Pg.92]
9. G. Dakshinamurthy, No. C-155, KPWD Qtrs, J-4 Road, JeevanbheemaNagar, Bangalore-75. SLF No. 1666[Pg.93] .10. Narasimhan, 522, 11th B Cross, II Phase, 8th Main, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore-78.
SLF No. 1814[Pg.101] .11. K. Ishwara Bhat, No. 2, Channakeshava Nilaya, 13th Main, M.C. Layout, Vijaynagar, Bangalore-40. SLF No. 1884 [Pg. No. 104].
12. V.C. Hatti,S.L.F.No. 2399 [Pg. No.235 ], C.J., OOD Dy. Secretary, Law Department,
Vidhanasoudha, Bangalore-560001.13. S.K. Venkatareddy, S.L.F.No. 2509 [Pg. 241 ],District Judge, Bangalore.
14. Chandrappa Nagappa Shivapuji, S.L.F.No. 2683 [Pg.251], Deputy Law Secretary, Vidhana
Soudha, Bangalore. 560001.15. K.S. Mudgal, S.L.F.No.3100 [Page.275 ], (i) District & sessions
Judge, city Civil Court, Bangalore. (ii) Registrar [Judicial] of
Karnataka High Court, Karnataka High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.
(iii) Principal Law Secretary, Karnataka Government, Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore-1.39-J: Supreme Court Judges : Sitting, Retired
-
Hon’ble Justice S. Mohan, SLF No. 1833. Former Supreme Court Judge, No. 861, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu, SLF No.1918 . Former Chief Justice of India, (i) No. 1389, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.(ii) presently, The NHRC (National Human Rights Commission) Chair on Human Rights, Faculty National Law School of India University,Nagarbhavi, BANGALORE 560 242.
-
Hon’ble Justice T.S. Thakur, S.L.F.No. 2502 (i) Judge, High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.(ii)Sitting Judge, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi- 110 001, (iii) No. 1273, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Justice H.L. Dattu, S.L.F.No. 2511 . (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001. (ii) Sitting Judge, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi- 110 001.(iii) TWO SITES: No. 859/D & No. 2511, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K.Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Justice G.T. Nanavati, S.L.F.No. 2520 [Pg. No.242], (i) Judge, Supreme Court of India, (ii) “Nanavati Commission probing the 2002 riot cases in Gujarat”, (iii) No. 2070, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Sri. V. Gopal Gowda, S.L.F.No. 2929 [Pg. No. 265],[XXX} Site In Un-Acuired Land without TITLES] (i) 2118/A, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post,BANGALORE 560 065. (ii) Chief Justice, High Court of Orissa, CUTTACK, Orissa- 753 001. (iii) present Supreme Court Judge.
-
Sri. P.Venkatarama Reddy, S.L.F.No. 2988[Page. 268], Chief Justice. High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-560001. (i) Former Judge of Supreme Court of India. “ Former Chairman, Law Commission of India”,(ii) Site No. No. 0001, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Padma Vibhushan Sri. M.N. Venkatachaliah, Employee Associate Membership No. 61 [Pg. No. 27]Former Chief Justice of India,No. 1295, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Sri. V. Balakrishna Herade, Employee Associate Membership No. 124 [Pg. No. 23]Former Supreme Court Judge,No. 1501, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Sri. K. Jayachandra Reddy, Employee Associate Membership No.155 [AM.Pg 23], Justice Reddy was elevated to the Supreme Court Bench on 11 January 1990.
39-K: Chief Justices of High Courts of India:-
1. Justice V.S. Malimath, (i) retired Chief Justice of Kerala High Court, Kerala.(ii) “Shantiniketan”, No. 6, Palace loop Road, Bangalore. 560 052.(iii) No. 1418, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.SLF No. 844 .
2. Justice M. Rama Jois, SLF No. 845[Pg. No. 048]. He gave Judgment ILR 1991 KAR 2248:- setting-aside [i] BIAS: L.A of Six HBCS;but failed to get Relief for Jud Empl HBCS [ii] He ruled “Only Employees who continue as Employees of Department ; may become Member of HBCS; but he became along with S.R. Rajshekhar Murthy][He mortgaged JL site for Rs 3 Lakhs in 200-01] (i) Former Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court & Governor of Punjab, (ii) ‘Sreesaila’, No. 870/C, Vth Block, Rajaji Nagar, BANGALORE 560 010.(iii) No. 1422, JudicialLayout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.H.S. Ramanna, judge, Special Court for Economic Offences, N.T. Peth, BANGALORE 560 065. SLF No. 846 [Pg. No. 048].
3. Hon’ble Justice M. Ramakrishna, SLF No. 1491. [Address & details not revealed ]. [He
disclosed Conspiracies of CJ & HC Judges; how they got lands acquired, by pressurizing Chief Ministers. His Letter to Upa-Lok GPS in 2001-02].4. Mrs. Manjula Chellur,SLF No.1579 . (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-1 (ii) No. 1473, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.(iii) Chief Justice, High Court of Kerala,.
5. Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.Y. Hanumanthappa, Employee Membership No.1933 . Former Chief Justice & Member of Parliament,No. 862, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
6. Hon’ble Justice R.V. Ravindran, S.L.F.No. 2497 . (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore-560 001.(ii)Former Supreme Court Judge, (iii) No. 1392, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.7. Hon’ble Justice V.P. Mohan Kumar, S.L.F.No. 2498 . (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka,
BANGALORE 560 001. (ii) Former Chief Justice of Kerala High Court (iii) No. 1268, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.8. Hon’ble Justice Kumara Rajaratnam, S.L.F.No. 2499 . (i) Judge, High ourt of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001. (ii) Former Chief Justice of (iii) No. 1271, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
9. Hon’ble Justice J. Eshwar Prasad, S.L.F.No. 2501. (i) Judge, High Court, BANGALORE 560001.(ii) Former Chief Justice of High Court, (iii) No. 1272, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
10.Justice R.P. Sethi, S.L.F.No. 2507 . (i) Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001. (ii) Former Judge, Supreme Court of India. (iii) *No.000,* Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
11.Justice S.R. Bannurmath, S.L.F.No. 2518 . (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001.(ii) Former Chief Justice of Kerala High Court,(ii) No. 2118/A, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
12.Sri. S.R. Nayak, Employee Associate Membership No. 257 . Former Acting Chief Justice of
Karnataka High Court and Chairman Karnataka Human Rights Commission, No.859/C, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.39-L: Karnataka High Court Retired Judges
-
Hon’ble Justice K.B. Navadagi, SLF No. 0003. Judge [Retired], High Court of Karnataka.
-
Justice R.G. Vaidyanatha, High Court of Karnataka. Bangalore -560 001. SLF No. 0217, [Pg No.013].
-
Sri. M.B. Viswanath,SLF No. 598 . (i) Former Judge of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore. 560001. (ii) No. 1416, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Justice C.N. Aswathnarayan Rao, Judge, High Court of Karnataka. Bangalore -560 001. SLF No. 0623. No.1439, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.].
-
Sri. K. Ramachandriaha, SLF No.813 (i) No. 49, 10th Cross, W.C.R. 2nd Stage, Mahalaxmipuram, Bangalore-560 086. (ii) Former Judge of Karnataka High Court, No. 1296/8, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065 .
-
Late Sri. G.N. Sabahit, SLF No. 820 . (i) Judge of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore. 560001.(ii) L.R Mrs. Janaki Sabahit, Smt. Janaki G Sabahit, 363, 60 Feet Road, Matadahally Further Extension, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore- 560 032.(iii) No. 1886, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE560 065.
-
Justice K. Jagannath Shetty, SLF No. 821 (i)Judge, Supreme Court, New Delhi. (ii) No. 1413, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Sri. M.S. Patil, SLF No.823 . (i) No. 364, R.T. Nagar Main road, Matadahally Further Extension,Bangalore. 560032. (ii) Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,No.1421, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Justice N.R. Kudoor, SLF No.824. (i) Retired Judge, High Court of Karnataka. Bangalore -560 001. .
-
Yeshodhara Doddakalegowda, SLF No.825 . (i) W/O Justice Doddakalegowda, Retired Judge, High Court of Karnataka.Bangalore -560 001. (ii) No. 1412, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065. .
-
Sri. A.K. Lakshmeshwar, SLF No. 828[Pg. No. 047 ] . In f/o Mrs. S.A. Lakshmeshwar. .Former Judge of Karnataka High Court, No. 1453, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065. H.M. Shivalingappa, Copurt Officer, High Court of Karnataka. Bangalore -560 001. SLF No.0829, [Pg No.047].
-
Sri. P.A. Kulkarni,SLF No. 0830 [Page.047]. (i) Retired Judge, Karnataka High Court,Bangalore -560 001. (ii) 109, 10th A Cross, II Main, II Stage, W C R , Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore.(iii) No. 1407, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Justice S.R. Rajshekhar Murty, (i) Judge [Retired],Karnataka High Court, Bangalore -560 001. (ii) No.864, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560065.SLF No.836 [Pg. No. 047].
-
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, (i) Former Judge of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore-560001. (ii) No. 6, Park area, 9th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore.(iii) No. 1404, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.SLF No.841 [Pg. No.047].
-
Justice D.R. Vittal Rao, Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,Bangalore -560 001.(ii) No. 361, 14th Cross, IV Main, Sadashiva Nagar, Bangalore -560 080.(iii) No. 1408, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.SLF No.849 [Pg.No.048].
-
Justice R.S. Mahendra, Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,Bangalore -560 001.SLF No.890 [Pg.No.050].
-
Justice B. Jagannatha Hegde,SLF No.897 [Pg. No.051]. (i) Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,Bangalore -560 001.(ii) Kunda Barandadi, Kundapura, Dakshina Kannada, Karanataka. 576 230.(iii) No. 1415, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Sri. G. Patri Basavana Goud,SLF No.899 [Pg.No.051] (i) Registrar [Vigilance], High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore -560 001.(ii) No. 1342, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.(iii) Former Upa Lokayukta of Karnataka, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore. 560 001..
-
Sri. Mohammed Anwar, (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore -560 001. (ii) No. 1480, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065. SLF No.914 [Pg.No.051 ].
-
Basavraj K.N. Patil , Represented by Smt. Kusuma Patil, 1171, Vth Division,Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore. 560 010. SLF No. 0985 [Page.055 ],.
-
ri. B.M. Mallikarjuniaha, SLF No. 1088 [Pg. No. 162 ]. [Former Judge of Karnataka High Court. Served as special Judge in Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J.Jayalalita Disproportionate Asset Case], No. 1475, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Justice A.R. Murgod, Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. 560 001. SLF No. 1172 [Page.066]. No. 1401, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Justice B.K. Sanglad, Judge, Karnataka High Court,BANGALORE 560 001. SLF No. 1188 [Page.067].
-
Sri. D.P. Hiremath, SLF No. 1385 . Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,No. 1384, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.(ii) Retired Judge of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore- 560 001.
-
Sri. H.N. Narayan, SLF No. 1400 .Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,No. 1476, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065. [Kept my Hero Honda in Police Custody; till date].
-
Hon’ble Justice B.Padmaraj, Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-1. SLF No. 1415 [Page.079].
-
Sri. M.P. Chinnappa, SLF No. 1471 .Former Judge of Karnataka High Court, No. 1419, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065. [ Petitioner in WP .PIL. 7105/2007; with G.P. Shivaprakash, Site No. 1420].
-
Justice N.D. Venkatesh, SLF No. 1477. Retd. H.C Judge, 412, 12th Main Road, R.M.V. Extension, Bangalore-80. [Allottee in JL-I].
-
Sri. M.M. Mirdhe, SLF No.1518 . Judge, Karnataka High Court, No. 1387, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE- 560 065.
-
Sri. K. Bhaktavatsala, SLF No. 1577 . (i)Judge, Karnataka High Court, Bangalore- 560 001. (ii) No. 1474, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Sri. V.G. Sabahit, SLF No.1578. (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-1, (ii) No. 1052, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE. 560 065.
-
Sri. H.G. Balakrishna,SLF No.1611 . Retd. Judge, No. 4, Residency Road, Bangalore-25. (ii) No. 1411, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
R.G. Desai, SLF No. 1631[Pg. No. 192], Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,No. 1403, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Sri. M.S. Rajendra Prasad, District Judge, Karwar. SLF No.1652.Former Judge of Karnataka High Court, No. 1401, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Hon’ble Justice A.C. Kabbin, Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-1. SLF No. 1679 .
-
Hon’ble Justice P.K. Shyamsundar, Vice Chairman, K.A.T., B.D.A., Complex, Indira Nagar, Bangalore-38. SLF No. 1731 .
-
Hon’ble Justice K.A. Swami, SLF No. 1835 . Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,No.1390, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramanna, S.L.F.No. 1924 . (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE-1. (ii) No. 981/D, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
V.G. Mahajan, Principal District & Sessions Judge, GULBARGA. S.L.F.No. 1924 [Pg. No.107 ].
-
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Venkataraman*, S.L.F.No. 2038 . (i)Former Judge of Karnataka High Court, (ii)No. 1471, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Sri. K. Shivashankar Bhat, S.L.F.No. 2342 . ,(i) Former Judge of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore-560 001. (ii) No.1382, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Sri.B.K. Somshekhar, S.L.F.No. 2358 .(i) Former Judge of Karnataka High Court (ii) “Justice B.K.Somasekhara Commission of Inquiry on Attacks on Churches”,(iii) No. 859/A, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
B.S. Srinivas Rao, S.L.F.No.2374 . (i) Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore-9. (ii) Former Judge of Karnataka High Court. (iii) No. 2102, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Hon’ble Justice C. Shivappa, S.L.F.No.2404 . (i)Former Judge of Karnataka & Tamil Nadu High Courts, (ii) No. 1417, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Hon’ble Justice L. Srinivas Reddy, S.L.F.No. 2405, Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,No. 1414, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Sri. R.V. Vasant Kumar, S.L.F.No. 2458 . (i)Former Judge of Karnataka High Court, (ii)No. 2094, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Sri. B.N. Krishna, S.L.F.No. 2466 .(i) Former Judge of Karnataka High Court, (ii) Chairman, Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission (FSLRC) ,(iii) No. 362/2, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Justice D.M. Chandrashekhar, S.L.F.No. 2494 . [Founder of Society 1982-83] .(i) Retired Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, (ii) No. 1392, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Hon’ble Justice A.J. Sadashiva, S.L.F.No.2495 . (i) Judge, High Court . Bangalore-560 001.(ii) Chairman “ A.J. Sadashiva Commission”, (ii) No.1417, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Hon’ble Justice R. Ramakrishna, S.L.F.No. 2496. (i) Judge, Karnataka High Court, Bangalore-560 001. (ii) No. 1267, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Hon’ble Justice P. Krishnamurty, S.L.F.No. 2500 . (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001.(ii) No. 1270, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Hon’ble Justice K.H.N. Khuranga, S.L.F.No. 2503 .(i) Judge, High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.(ii) Former Chief Justice (iii) No.1410, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Sri. G.C. Bharuka, S.L.F.No. 2504 . [Date of Membership 23 Apl,1999 ], (i) Judge, High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.(ii) “Chairman E-Committee for monitoring use of InformationTechnology and Administrative Reforms in the Indian Judiciary” appointed by the Hon‘ble Chief Justice of India, (iii) No. 1266, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065. (iv) he had made Basement as TENNIS COURT.
-
Justice Chandrashekhriaha, S.L.F.No. 2508 . (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001.(ii) Former Up Lokayukta of Karnataka. Removed by Karnataka High Court Order. (iii) No. 1296/11, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Justice V.K. Singhal, S.L.F.No. 2513 . (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001. (ii) Former Chief Justice(iii) No. 2118, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Justice P. Vishwanath Shetty, S.L.F.No. 2514 . (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001. (ii) No. 1394, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Justice K.R. Prasadrao, S.L.F.No. 2516 . (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001. (ii) Former Chief Justice. (iii) No. 0000, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Justice N.S Veerabhdriaha, S.L.F.No. 2517 . (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001. (ii) . Site No. 0000, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Justice Abdulla Mohammed Farooq , S.L.F.No. 2519 . (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-1(ii) No.70,Judicial Layout-II, Talghattpura, Kanakpura Road, BANGALORE .
-
Justice T.N. Vellinayagam. S.L.F.No. 2861. Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.560001.
-
Justice R. Gururajan, S.L.F.No. 2867. Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.560001.
-
G.T. Veerabhdrappa, S.L.F.No. 2902. D J. BANGALORE.
-
Sri. Chidanand Ullal, S.L.F.No. 2980 .Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,No. 362/2, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Sri. A.R. Srinivas Reddy, S.L.F.No. 2981.Judge. High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-560001. (ii) No. 2118/C, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Sri. T.J. Chouta, Employee Associate Membership No.121 [AM.Page. 23],Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,No. 2068, Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Sri. M.S. Nesargi, Employee Associate Membership No.115 [AM.Page.22 ], Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,No. 239/15 Judicial Layout,G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Justice K.R.Siddapa [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 579 [Pg. No. 25].
-
Justice V. Jagannathan, S.L.F.No. 2583 . (i) Prl D J, Chikkamagalur. (ii) “Suspected to be” Judge, Karnataka High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.(iii) No.221 , Judicial Layout-II, Talghattpura, Kanakpura Road, BANGALORE
39-M: Karnataka Lokayukta, Upa Lokayuktas, Registrars, DRE, ARE Etc:–
-
Sri. Shashidhar B. Majage, SLF No.819 [Pg No.46]. (i) No. 1337, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065. (ii) Present Up Lokayukta of Karnataka, Office of the Karnataka Lokayukta, M.S. Building, bangalore- 560 001. .
-
L. Subramanya, Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, N.T. Road, Bangalore. 560 010. SLF No. 0997 [Page.056 ].
-
B.A. Muchandi, District Judge, TUMKUR. SLF No. 1339 [Page.075]. [ARE-2 who hushed-up with G.P.S]. [Signed Sale deed as witness to HC Judge M.P. Chinnappa; a Petnr in 7105/07].
-
Justice N. Venkatachala , (i) Retired Supreme Court Judge,New Delhi. (ii) Former Lokayukta of Karnataka, Bangalore(iii) No. 1381, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post,BANGALORE 560 065. SLF No.0852 [Pg No.048].
-
S. Shankaranarayana, Court Officer, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-1. SLF No. 1362 [Page.076]. [Suspected P.S to Up.Lok G.P.S in 1999-2002].
-
A.K. Patil, Additional Registrar, Lokayuktha, M.S. Building, Bangalore-1. SLF No. 1393 [Page.078].
-
C.Y. Illur, Civil Judge, BELGAUM. SLF No. 1410 [Page.079]. [ARE-2 who hushed-up with G.P.S].
-
Adavi Rao, No. 8-11-38, N.G.O. colony, RAICHUR. SLF No. 1430 [Page.080].
-
Mahipal Desai, Civil Judge, DRE-1, Lokayukta, M.S.Building, Bangalore-1. SLF No. 1450 [Page.081].
-
M.S. Hegde Nagre, Civil Judge & JMFC, PUTTUR. SLF No. 1467[Page.082]. [Who got loan approved, while in Lokayuktha, in site on land which was forced to Compromise ] .
-
B. Yoginath, III Additional judge, Small Cause Court, Bangalore-9. SLF No. 1723 [Pg.96] . [Lokayukta Registrar, after M.K.N.Moole .2001-13 ]
-
M.J. Indrakumar, Additional Registrar, Lokayuktha, M.S. Building, Bangalore-1. SLF No. 1865 [Pg. No. 104].
-
Justice G.P. Shivaprakash, SLF No. 1878 [Pg No.206]. Former Up Lokayukta of Karnataka,No.1420, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065. [Appointed in 1990. Membership on 19 April, 1990 ].
-
K.A. Lalitha, Asst. Registrar, Lokayukta, M.S. Bldg, Bangalore-1. Emp. SLF No. 1642 [Pg.92] .
-
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj Patil*, Employee Membership No.1960 [Pg. No. 211], [Former Lokayukta of Karnataka, Resigned in wake of “Owning Site in Judicial Layout, developed by Accused No. 1 and also in Vyalikaval Housing Society Layout”]* , No. 1399, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
S.A. Pandit, S.L.F.No. 2112 [Page 219], Munsiff & JMFC, Tiptur, Tumkur District. [who was Lokayukta, ARE-2 ; gave certified copies of BCD-64 834 pages in 2012 ] [Whose Sale Deed was registrered during BCD enquiry].
-
Hon’ble Justice S.A. Hakeem, S.L.F.No. 2341 [Page 232], (i) Judge, High Court, Bangalore-560 001.(ii) No. 1388, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao, S.L.F.No. 2512 [Pg. 241], (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001.(ii)Former Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, (iii)No. 1253, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
-
K. Sukanya, S.L.F.No. 2655, [Pg.249 ],Deputy Registrar, Lokayukta, Bangalore.
-
B.K.Naik, S.L.F.No. 2969. Civil Judge [Sr. Divn]. Dy. Registrar, Lokayukta. Bangalore.
-
Sri. K. Palakshappa, S.L.F.No. 2994 [Pg No.268], Civil Judge [Jr. Division], Harapanahally. Karnataka [Suspected Judge heard Lokayukta Case against Mote Family from 2004 to 2006 ? ].
-
Patil Nagalinganagowda, S.L.F.No. 3262 [Page 284 ],(i) Civil Judge & JMFC, II Court, Davangere(ii) ACMM-VIII Court, Bangalore (iii) presently serving as ACMM-VIII, Magistrate Court Complex, Bangalore; [Who had “Prepared Charges; under pressure from High Court Judges etc., without even hearing].[Trial Court Judge in : Lokayukta Complaint Vs Digvijay Mote ] .
-
V.G. Bopaiah, S.L.F.No. 3186 [Page.280 ],Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Dy. Registrar, Lokayukta, Bangalore-1.
-
Bylura Shankara Rama, Employee Membership No.3187 [Page.280 ],Civil Judge [Sr. Divn] & Dy. Registrar, Lokayukta, Bangalore-1.
-
C.R. Rajasomashekhara, S.L.F.No. 3209 [Page. 281],Deputy Registrar, Lokayukta, Bangalore.
-
L. Vijaylaksmi Devi, S.L.F.No. 3226 [Page 282 ], Deputy Registrar, Enquiry-1, Lokayukta, Bangalore.
-
R. Sharada, S.L.F.No. 3260 [Page 284 ],Assistant Registrar, Lokayukta, Bangalore.
-
Justice Santosh Hegde, Employee Associate Membership No.125, [AM.Page. 006],
39-N: Karnataka District Judges, Judicial Officers, Magistrates Etc.:-
-
V Padmanabha Kedilaya, 45, 4th Cross, Judicial Officer Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bangalore. 560094. SLF No. 0151, [Pg No.009].
-
M.R. Hegde, District Judge, OOD Additional Law Secretary, Department of Law & Parliamentary affairs, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore. 560001.SLF No. 0154, [Pg No.009].
-
R.G. Sejekan, Presiding Officer, IInd Additional Labour Court, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore. 560009. SLF No. 0213, [Pg No.013].
-
V.N. Hebbar, District Judge, No. 383, Ist Cross, Judges’ Colony, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore. 560032. SLF No. 0228, [Pg No.013].
-
K.B. Vaidya, President, Consumer dispute Redressal Forum, Mysore District. SLF No. .0229, [Pg No.013].
-
M.R. Revankar, Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. 560009. SLF No. 0246, [Pg No.014].
-
P.V. Hogde, Principal Civil Judge & CJM, Bijapur, SLF No. 0254, [Pg No.015].
-
B. Srinivas Rao, Presiding Officer, Industrial tribunal, Bangalore. 560009.SLF No. 0289, [Pg No.017].
-
C.B. Munavalli, Principal Munsiff, Hubli. SLF No. 0296, [Pg No.017].
-
S. Ramamurthy, 18th Additional City & Sessions Judge, Bangalore. 560009. SLF No. 0351, [Pg No.020].
-
R.J. Desai, District Judge [Retired], 552, 7th Main, Sadashiva Nagar,.Bangalore. 560080. SLF No. 0355, [Pg No.020].
-
D.L. Sunanda, No. 4444, Settahalli Beedhi, Ramnagara town. Karnataka. SLF No. 0386, [Pg No.022].
-
P Bhaskar, No. 11, Rest House Crescent, Bangalore. 560001. SLF No. 0394, [Pg No.023].
-
Raja Venkatappa Naik, Retired Civil Judge, No. 106 C Type, HAL – III Stage, Jeevanbeema Nagar. Bangalore-560075. SLF No. 0485, [Pg No.028]
-
B.D. Rajnal, D-140, P.W.D. Quarters, Jeevanbeema Nagar, Bangalore. 560075. SLF No. 0572, [Pg No.031].
-
B.S. Ramakanth, 1075/F, 10th Main, HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore. 560038. SLF No. 0579, [Pg No.033].
-
B.A. Patil, No. 53, 11th Cross, Hanumath Nagar, Basappa Layout, Bangalore -560 019. SLF No. 0590, [Pg No.033].
-
L.P. Patil, No. 530 HMT Layout, Gangenahally, Bangalore -560 009. SLF No. 0643, [Pg No.036].
-
K.M. Thammiaha, Principal Civil Judge & CJM, Mysore. SLF No. 0644, [Pg No.036].
-
Venkataswamy, Mutchi, High Court of Karnataka. Bangalore -560 001. SLF No. 0657, [Pg No.037].
-
P.B. Chaughule, Retired District Judge, 252, A. Ramde Road, Thilakwadi, Belgaum-6. SLF No. 0674, [Pg No.038].
-
P Basava, Mullur Village, Mamballi Post, Kollegal Taluq, Mysore District. SLF No. 0676, [Pg No.038].
-
S.A. Patel, 6th Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. SLF No. 0686, [Pg No.039].
-
M. Nagbhushan, 1207, 9th Cross, Judicial Layout, G K V K Post, Bangalore. 560084. SLF No. 0715, [Pg No.040].
-
H.B. Sajekan, No. 181, 8th Cross, Sriram Nagar, II Stage, II Phase, Geleyarabalaga Extension, W C R Road, Bangalore -560 001. SLF No. 0723, [Pg No.041].
-
V.K. Dwarakanath, 12th additional Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Bangalore -560 086. SLF No. 0724, [Pg No.041].
-
Smt T.N. Usha, No. 1, Race Course Road, Bangalore 560 001. SLF No. 0731[Page. 41].
-
P.S. Ramamurthy, B-3, Srirangapatna, A Ramanna Street, Mandya District. SLF No.0748, [Pg No.042].
-
D. Krishnappa, Former Prl Civil & CJM, Shimoga. Karnataka. Employee Membership No.755 [Page. 43 ]. [in 2004, My Family was prosecuted by this man & N. Venktachala; while he was Lokayukta Registrar. He came to adduce evidence to Court!]
-
K. Krishna Naik, Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gulbarga. SLF No. 0771, [Pg No.044].
-
Jinadatta Desai, 52, II Main, Saraswathipuram, Mysore. 570009. SLF No. 0785, [Pg No.044].
-
S. Shyamala, 1204/7, Monasara Road, Ittigegudu, Mysore-10. SLF No. 0786, [Pg No.044].
-
S.G. Ramachandra Rao, No. 111, 3rd Main Road, 3rd Block,3rd Stage, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore.560079. SLF No. 0793, [Pg No.045].
-
Y.R. Sawkar, 409, Ist ‘N’ Block, 19th G Main, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore -560 010. SLF No. 0802, [Pg No.045].
-
M.N. Shankar Bhat, 23rd Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore -560009. SLF No. 0804, [Pg No.045].
-
A. Venkatachaliah, No. 253/A, Srinivasa Nilaya, II B Main Road, I Phase, Giri Nagar, Bangalore. 560085. SLF No. 834 [Page.047 ].
-
P. Srinivasa, Additional CJM, Bangalore. 560 002.Employee Membership No.842 [Pg. No.047].
-
G.B. Hanumantharayappa, No. 1168, Maruti Nilaya, Vth Block, Rajaji Nagara, Bangalore 560010.SLF No.843 [Pg. No.048].
-
A.B. Nagral, No. 28, Ist Floor, 5th Main, 9th Cross, Krishnappa Block, Ganga Nagar, Bangalore -560 032. SLF No.850 [Pg. No.048].
-
N.N. Dharwadkar, Under Secretary, Government Law Department, Vidhanasoudha, Bangalore. 560001. SLF No.892 [Pg. No.050].
-
S. Iqbal Ahmed, Presiding Officer,SLF No.894 [Pg. No.050]., Addl. Industrial Tribunal, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore. 560001.
-
N. Subbarao, Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore. 560001. SLF No.893 [Pg. No.050].
-
S. Iqbal Ahmed, Presiding Officer Additional, Industrial Tribunal, Ist Cross, Mayur Mansion, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore -560 009. SLF No.894 [Pg. No.050].
-
T. Mahesh Hegde, Principal Civil Judge, No. 78/1,‘Santhosh’ Upstairs, K.R. Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. 560 004. SLF No.902 [Pg. No. 051].
-
B.M. Chandrashekhriaha, Retired District Judge, No.2,Madhav Nagar, Race Cource Road, Bangalore. 560 001. SLF No. 903 [Pg. No. 051].
-
S.G.S. Khadri, 14/1, Kabeen Road, 4th Cross,Mysore-2.SLF No.904 [Pg. No. 051].
-
P. Seethramiaha, Presiding Officer, Karnataka State Transport Appellate Authority, Bangalore.SLF No.915[Pg.No.052].
-
S. Nagraju, Assistant Registrar, Lokayukta, M.S. Building, Bangalore. 560 004.SLF No.916 [Pg.No. 052].
-
H.R. Narayana Rao, No.13, 5th Cross, Swimming Pool Extension, Malleswaram, Bangalore. 560 003. SLF No.921 [Pg. No. 052].
-
K. Radhakrishnan, No. 47, Old No. 24, 4th Cross, Swimming Pool Extension, Malleswaram, Bangalore. 560 003. SLF No. 924 [Pg. No. 052].
-
B. Mopuri Reddy, 486, 10th Cross, Upper Palace Orchards, Sadashiv Nagar, Bangalore. 560 003.SLF No.927 [Pg. No. 052].
-
B.S. Reddy, Civil Judge & CJM,Bijapur,Karnataka.SLF No.936 [Pg. No. 053].
-
K.V. Krishna Murthy, Civil Judge & JMFC, Hunsur, Karnataka. SLF No.937 [Pg. No. 053].
-
R.B. Doddamani, 198/5, Sakar Chawl, Kaladgi Road, Bagalkot- 587 101. SLF No. 939 [Pg. No. 053].
-
B.P. Pareddy, II Additional Civil Judge & CJM, TUMKUR. SLF No. 943[Pg. No. 053].
-
H.L. Ramaprasad, 1082/1, Jaya Nivas, Narasaraja Road, Chamarajapuram, MYSORE-4. SLF No. 944 [Pg. No. 053].
-
H. Shanmukhappa, No. 250, III Main, Mahalaxmi Layout, Bangalore. 560 086.SLF No. 947 [Pg. No. 053].
-
V.R. Venkateshappa, 244, 6th Cross, Ist Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore. 560 038. SLF No. 949 [Pg. No. 053].
-
M.S. Vasudeva, No. 1056, Venkateshwara Nilaya, Brahmins Street, KOLAR. SLF No. 960 [Pg. No. 054].
-
T. Nanjappa, Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore. 560 038. SLF No. 965 [Pg. No. 054].
-
M.G. Hiremath, Civil Judge, BIDAR. SLF No. 0973 [Page.055 ],
-
B.S. Tadahal, C/O P.S. Tadahal Merchants, Naragund, Dharwad District. SLF No. 0974 [Page.055 ].
-
Anusuya Bai, No. 2900, 14th Main, II Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. 560 010. SLF No. 0978 [Page.055 ].
-
T. Rajashekharaiah, Civil Judge & JMFC., SRIRANGAPATNA. Karnataka. SLF No. 0986 [Page.055 ].
-
S. Siddalingaiah, Civil Judge & CJM, SHIMOGA. SLF No. 0987 [Page.056 ].
-
J.R. Hegde, CJ OOD Judicial Member, LRAA, Dhondusa Complex, Richmond Circle, Bangalore.SLF No. 0989 [Page.056 ].
-
B.K. Kanvi, 1278, III Cross, Judicial Layout, GKVK Post, Bangalore. 560 010. SLF No. 0990 [Page.056 ].
-
K. Radhakrishna Holla, III Additional CMM, Criminal Court, Bangalore. 560 010. SLF No. 0992 [Page.056 ].
-
N.T. Janakiram, 316, 7th Cross, 5th Main, Vekatarangapuram, , P G Halli,Bangalore. 560 010. SLF No. 0993 [Page.056 ].
-
Nadig Jayaswamy, Civil Judge & CJM, CHIKKAMAGALUR, Karnataka. SLF No. 0994 [Page.056 ].
-
M.P. Jakathe, No. 15, R.M.V. IInd Stage, Judicial Officers Layout, Sanjay Nagar, Bangalore. 560 094. SLF No. 1000 [Page.056 ].
-
C.Y. Baramagoudar, Additional District Judge, BELLARY. SLF No. 1008 [Page.057 ].
-
M.N. Pranesh, Vth Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Bangalore. 560 009. SLF No. 1011 [Page.057 ].
-
L.M. Ladkhan, Civil Judge, Haveri, Karnataka. SLF No. 1039[Page.058 ].
-
N.R. Goodawala, Presiding Officer, Industrial tribunal, MYSORE. SLF No. 1041 [Page.059 ].
-
B.R. Ramarao, No.386,14th B Cross, Yelahanka, Bangalore. 560064. SLF No. 1044 [Page.059].
-
A.C. Vidyadhara, No. 13, Ashoka Road, MYSORE-1. SLF No. 1045 [Page.059].
-
A.R. Siddiqui, City Civil Judge, Bangalore. 560 009. SLF No. 1048 [Page.059]
-
S.N. Thite, P No. 20 A, Nadgir Park, Sadhankeri, DHARWAD. 560 008. SLF No. 1050 [Page.059 ].
-
Yeshoda Armugam, 8th Additional CMM, Criminal Court, Bangalore. 560 002. SLF No. 1061 [Page.060*].
-
R.N. Deshpande, 68, B, 21st Cross, II Block, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore. 560 010. SLF No. 1062 [Page.060 ].
-
H.G. Ghaliyavar, Member, K.A.T., M.S. Building, Bangalore. 560 001. SLF No. 1064 [Page.060 ].
-
R. Venkatesh, Civil Judge, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore. 560 002. SLF No. 1077[Page.061 ].
-
K. Rachiaha, Munsiff & JMFC, LINGASUGUR. Karnataka. SLF No. 1079 [Page.061].
-
Joshi Arun Ramarao, Civil Judge, Bijapur. SLF No. 1080 [Page.061].
-
S. Mayanna, 745, 15th Main road, B.S.K. IInd Stage, Bangalore. 560 070. SLF No. 1085[Page.061 ].
-
Sri R.H. Raddi, City Civil Judge, Bangalore. 560 0009.SLF No. 1089[Page.061].
-
C.G. Hungund, Civil Judge, CHIKKODI. Karnataka.SLF No. 1090 [Page.061].
-
H.V. Ramachandra Rao, Judge, Small Cause Court, Bangalore. 560 0038. SLF No. 1106 [Page.062].
-
Shankara Naika, Civil Judge, Mangalore. SLF No. 1113 [Page.063].
-
H. Umesh Shetty, President, District Consumer Forum, Mangalore [D.K.]. SLF No. . 1116 [Page.063].
-
S.N. Byadagi, Special officer, [Retired], High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. 560 001. SLF No. 1136 [Page.064 ].
-
M.S. Raghvendra Rao, J M, City Civil Court, Bangalore. 560 009. SLF No. 1138 [Page.064].
-
K. Vittal Sheregar, Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. 560 001. SLF No. 1145 [Page.064].
-
R.K. Balasundar, Presing Officer, Additional Labor Court, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore- 560 009. SLF No. 1152 [Page.065].
-
Basanna Manuray, Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, RAICHUR. SLF No. 1162 [Page.065].
-
T.S. Laxminarayan Rao, 384, Ist Cross, Judges Colony, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore- 560 032. SLF No. 1163 [Page.065].
-
T.J. Mariyappa, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore- 560 009. SLF No. 1164 [Page.065].
-
K.T. Venkataramanappa, Judge, 2, 1st Cross, II stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore. 560 038. SLF No. 1165 [Page.065].
-
V.G. Charati, Civil Judge & JMFC, YADGIR. SLF No. 1169 [Page.066 ].
-
B.S. Shambu, Judge, President Kodagu District Fprum, Shekhar Complex, Mahadevpet, MADKERI. SLF No. 1171 [Page.066].
-
G. Raghvendra Rao, Civil Judge, GULBARGA. SLF No. 1174 [Page.066].
-
H.S. Naik, Judge, 2215, HAL-III Stage, Bangalore. 560 008. SLF No. 1175 [Page.066].
-
Chanraiaha, Munsiff & JMFC, ALAND. SLF No. 1177 [Page.066].
-
I.S. Antin, Judge, 709, 10th ‘A’ Main Road, 4th Block, Jaynagar. Bangalore. 560 011. SLF No. 1182 [Page.066].
-
M Raju, Judge, Civil Judges’ Court (R). Bangalore. 560 009.SLF No. 1187 [Page.067].
-
M.K. Purohit, Prl Munsiff & JMFC, BIDAR. SLF No. 1190 [Page.067 ].
-
Mohanthagouda Biradar, Addl. Civil Judge, TUMKUR. SLF No. 1194. [Page.067].
-
M. Sham Bhat, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, MANGALORE. Dakshina Kannada. SLF No. 1195 [Page.067].
-
Siddegowda, District Judge, Lokayukta, M.S. Building, 560 001.SLF No. 1200 [Page.067].
-
G.J. Prasad, Civil Judge,Small Cause Court, 560 009.SLF No. 1201[Page.067]
-
C Guruswamy, Civil Judge, MADIKERI. SLF No. 1203[Page.067].
-
K Nagayya Shetty, Judge, Flat No. 3/26, New Tippasandra, BANGALORE 560 075. SLF No. 1207[Page.068 ].
-
G.H. Prasad, Ist Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE 560 009.SLF No. 1215 [Page.068].
-
P.G. Nadagouda, 1st Addl. Civil Judge, BAGALKOTE. SLF No. 1218[Page.068]
-
R.S. Bhat, Judge, Smt. Jaya R Bhat, 88, Ground Floor, REMCO Layout, Vijay Nagara, BANGALORE 560 040. SLF No. 1224 [Page.068].
-
K.N. Nagendra Kumar, 13th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE 560 009. SLF No. 1226[Page.069].
-
K H Rajshekhar, Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, RANEBENNUR. SLF No. 1236 [Page.069 ] .
-
E. Achutan, No. 8, 3rd Cross, Ist Main, Ist Stage, 6th Phase, W C Road, Bangalore-44.SLF No. 1238 [Page.069].
-
N Kempaiah, 43, Saraswati Nagar, Moodalapalya Main road, Bangalore-40 . SLF No. 1239 [Page.069]
-
M.M. Soorangi, Metropolitan Magistrate, M.M. Traffic Court, Bangalore. SLF No. 1244 [Page.070].
-
J.S. Somashekhara, Ist Addl. Munsiff & JMFC, Chikkamagalur. SLF No. 1245 [Page.070].
-
Vasant Mulasavalagi, H.No.16, Sonar Vavadi Road, Bijapur-560101. SLF No. 1246 [Page.070].
-
G.K.Somanath, Prl. C.J & C.J.M, Belagaum . SLF No. 1247 [Page.070].
-
Bashir Ahmed Magbul Sindagi, Munsiff. Adress not revealed. SLF No. 1248 [Page.070].
-
M.A. Shama Iyengar, 177, 3rd ‘E’ Cross, Judges Colony, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore-79. SLF No. 1253 [Page.070].
-
K.M. Murari Mouni, Civil Judge, SHIMOGA. SLF No. 1256 [Page.070].
-
M.T. Gudajannavar, No.32, Upstairs,Sunkalpet Main Road, Cubbon Peth, Bangalore-2. SLF No. 1259 [Page.071].
-
S.G. Bhoske, C.A.O., District Court, BIDAR. SLF No. 1260 [Page.071].
-
A.C.Patil, Class-3 Govt. Quarters, Vishwara Nagar, BELGAUM. SLF No. 1262 [Page.071].
-
S.Nagesh, Civil Judge, Small Cause Court, Bangalore-9 . SLF No. 1266 [Page.071].
-
M Mahadevappa, 28, Sarakki Gate, Kanakapura Main road, Gangadharnagar, Bangalore-78. SLF No. 1279 [Page.072].
-
Prathiba N. Lalge, 190, II block, III Stage, Judicial Colony, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore-79. SLF No. 1281[Page.072].
-
N.C. Lakshminarasimhaiah, 643, 10th E Main Road, 6th Block, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore-10. SLF No. 1286[Page.072].
-
M.G. Raju, K.T. 271, Chamundeshwari Nagar, MANDYA-571-401. SLF No. 1292 [Page.072].
-
P.G. Kulakarni, D.J., OOD Charity Commissioner, Court Compound, BELGAUM. SLF No. 294[Page.073].
-
Bachegowda, 1152, 26th A Main, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-11. SLF No. 1299 [Page.073].
-
V. Narayanappa, 7/1, G M Temple Street, Matadahalli, Bangalore-32. SLF No. 1302 [Page.073].
-
V.B. Hadli, Hadli Building, Near Civil Judges Court, BAGALKOTE, Bijapur. SLF No. 1308 [Page.073].
-
P.C. Dayaparamurthy,14/2, I Cross, Shanti Nivasa, Nehru Nagar, Bangalore-20. SLF No. 1311 [Page.073].
-
N.A. Sudha, 31, Chincholi House, II Main road, Chamarajapeth, Bangalore-18. SLF No. 1313 [Page.074].
-
C.N. Roadnnavar, 83/2, Ashwath Nagar, Hebbal Post, Bangalore-24. SLF No. 1316 [Page.074].
-
T.S Palanethra,, District & Sessions Judge, GULBARGA. SLF No. 1319 [Page.074 ].
-
M. Rangapparaju, K-159, II Floor, I Cross, T.D. Lane, Cotton Peth Cross, Bangalore. SLF No. 1320 [Page.074].
-
R. Balagangadhar, C 54, Jeevan Bheema Nagar, Bangalore-75. SLF No. 1323 [Page.074].
-
K. Ningegowda, Principal Munsiff, MYSORE. SLF No. 1326 [Page.074 ].
-
B.R. Shivaramaiah, C.O., High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-1. SLF No. 1328 [Page.074].
-
Shanthakumar Gupta, 55, Secretariat Layout, Marenahally,Vijaynagar, Bangalore-4. SLF No. 1330 [Page.075].
-
V.M. Aradhya, Civil Judge & JMFC, BHADRAVATHI. SLF No. 1332 [Page.075].
-
Somanath Bhagoji, Judicial Member, Appellate Authority, BIDAR. SLF No. 1335 [Page.075].
-
D.B. Kulkarni, No. 151-B, II Block, 32 Cross, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore-10. SLF No. 1336 [Page.075].
-
S.R. Venkateshmurthy, Principal District & Sessions judge, MYSORE. SLF No. 1338 [Page.075].
-
S.M. Krishnamurthy, 1309, W C R. II Stage, Mahalaxmipuram, Bangalore-86. SLF No. 1343 [Page.075].
-
Swamirao Desai, No.86-R, 31st Cross, II Block, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore-10. SLF No. 1344 [Page.075].
-
K. Kalegowda, No. 155, IInd Main Road, W C R II Stage, Mahalaxmipuram, Bangalore-86. SLF No. 1345 [Page.075].
-
S.R. Puranik, 24, 14th ‘A’ Cross, Behind MES College, Malleswaram,Bangalore-3. SLF No. 1378 [Page.077].
-
S.T. Kudasomannavar, District Judge, BIDAR. SLF No. 1381 [Page.077].
-
C.V Ramanna, 95/1, Ground Floor, Ist Main Road, Sheshdripuram, Bangalore-20. SLF No. 1384 [Page.078].
-
A.H. Adappanavar, Chief Judicial Magistrate, N.T.Road, Bangalore-2. SLF No. 1389 [Page.078].
-
C.K.Puttegowda, No. 2804, 1st Block, II Cross, IInd Stage, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore-10. SLF No. 1390 [Page.078].
-
B.V. Prakash, Munsiff & JMFC, Nagamangala, MANDYA Dist. SLF No. 1392 [Page.078].
-
S.G. Patil, No. 9/A, II Cross, 1st Main, Bhoopasandra, R.M.V. II Stage, Bangalore-94. SLF No. 1396 [Page.078].
-
Puttarsegowda, 2146, III Main, II Stage, Vijaynagar, Bangalore-40.SLF No. 1406 [Page.078].
-
N.S.Patil, IVth Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore-2. SLF No. 1411 [Page.079].
-
H.G. Syed Murtuza, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, HUBLI. SLF No. 1412 [Page.079].
-
M.V.Sheelavath, No.21, Municipal Quarters, 3rd Hosur Cross, HUBLI. SLF No. 1429 [Page.080].
-
Prakash Bellary, Member, Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, M.S.Building, Bangalore-1. SLF No. 1468 [Page.082].
-
N. Srivatsa Kedilaya, 1st Additional Civil judge, Dharwad. SLF No. 1480 [Pg. No.083].
-
H.R.Sudheer, Civil Judge & JMFC, Nanjangud, Mysore District. SLF No. 1485[Pg. No.083].
-
J.C. Neralgi, Civil judge & CJM,Chitradurga. SLF No. 1496 [Pg. No.084 ].
-
S.G. Kashimat, Munsiff & JMFC, Bagepally. SLF No. 1497 [Pg. No.084 ].
-
T.N. Basavraju, No. 1261, K.T.Street, Sreerangapatna, Mandya District. SLF No.1503[Pg. No.084].
-
S.Karunakaran Nair, 1014/13, A.R. avenue, New Thippasandra, J.B.Nagar Post, Bangalore-75. SLF No. 1504 [Pg. No.084 ].
-
T.K.Madhurao, No.22, Jayanagar 7th Block, Bangalore. SLF No.1505 [Pg. No.084 ].
-
M.S.Evani, Civil judge, Davangere. SLF No. 1510[Pg. No.085 ].
-
B.Shankarnarayan Bhat, District Judge, MADIKERI. SLF No.1513[Pg. No.085 ].
-
A.L. Poojar, Civil Judge & JMFC, Madhugiri. SLF No.1514 [Pg. No.085 ].
-
R.R. Bhairanapadamath, Addl. Munsiff & JMFC., SAGAR. Shimoga Dist. SLF No. 1527 [Pg. No.085].
-
S.M.Reddy, 5th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore-2. Employee Membership No.1530 [Pg. No.086].
-
Vidhyavathi Akki, C/O S.D.Akki, Advocate, Near Darbar Jr. College, Station road, BIJAPUR. SLF No.1535 [Pg. No.086].
-
B. Balakrishna, Munsiff & JMFC, BILAGI. SLF No. 1551 [Pg. No.087 ].
-
Kazi Mohammed Mujibullah, Civil judge, 1st floor, Nawab Compound, Opposite A.I.R., Dharwad-8. SLF No.1566 [Pg. No.088].
-
D. Vishweshwara Bhat, Munsiff & JMFC, Lakshmeshwar. SLF No.1571 [Pg. No. 089].
-
Marthandarao, Plot No. 217, NGO’s Layout, Jewargi Road Colony, Gulbarga. *Employee Membership No.1574 [Pg. No.088].
-
K.B. Sangannavar, Munsiff, Bhoote Oni, Ranebennur, Dharwad District.SLF No. 1581 [Pg. No.088].
-
S.V. Tilgul, Retd. District Judge, No. 1664, 9yh Main, HAL III Stage, Bangalore-75. SLF No.1583 [Pg. No.089 ].
-
J.N. Sreenivasmurthy, C-44, Hyderabad estates, Nepeon Sea Road, Malbar Hills, Mumbai-400 026. SLF No. 1584[Pg. No.089].
-
V.S.Aratii, Parvathi Nilaya, No. 67, 1st ‘C’ Cross, Gandhi Nagar, Dharwad-4. * Employee Membership No.1586[Pg. No.089].
-
K. Manmohan, Munsiff & JMFC, K.R. Peth, Mandya District. SLF No. 1592[Pg. No.089].
-
Paragouda Patil, Ist Addl. Dist. Judge, Mysore. SLF No. 1605[Pg. No.090].
-
N. Chandrashekhariah, Judge, Small Cause Court, Mysore. SLF No.1609[Pg. No.090].
-
G. Nandakumar, Prl. Dist & Sessions Judge, Hasan.SLF No.1613 [Pg. No.090].
-
A. Venkatachala, SLF No. 1617 [Pg. No.090 ] .1701, 5th ‘A’ cross, 14th Main, BSK 1st Stage , II Block, Bangalore. [S/O N.Venkatachala; suspected].
-
K.L.Shivalingegowda, Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Hunsur, Mysore Dist. Emp. SLF No. 1638 [Pg.92] .
-
Sadashivaiah, Civil Judge, Neeralgi, Gadag Taluk, Dharwad Dist. Emp. SLF No. 1639 [Pg.92] .
-
S.B. Turmari, Munsiff, 705 K, Near KEB Office, Bailhongal Post, Belgaum. Emp. SLF No. 1640 [Pg.092] .
-
G.N. Sreekantaiah, Munsiff, Bhaggavalli Post, Ajjampura, Hobli, Tarikere Taluk, Chikkamagalur Dist. Emp. SLF No. 1641 [Pg.92] .
-
M.P. Thonne, No. 96, Bhuruda Galli, CHIKKODI. Emp. SLF No. 1643 [Pg.92] .
-
N. Narayana, No. 802, Srinivasa, 8th Main Road, Srinagar. Bangalore-50. Emp. SLF No. 1647 [Pg.92] .
-
R. Basavana Gowda, No. 2625, 1st Floor, 38th Cross, IX Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore. Emp. SLF No. 1649 [Pg.92] .
-
H.M. Basavaraj, No. 1093 (1), Yentumane Vatara, K.R.Pura. HASSAN. Emp. SLF No. 1650 [Pg.92] .
-
B. Sreeram Reddy, Spl. JMFC for Sales Tax, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore-20. SLF No. 1656 [Pg.93] . [Who raised H.C. Loans in O.S, in a land Grabbed, site] .
-
S. Anantamurthy, 565/1, 7th B Main Road, H.A.L. II Stage. Bangalore-8. SLF No. 1660 [Pg.93] .
-
A.M. Ramachandraiah, Civil Judge [Sr. Dn], Administrative Training Institute (ATI), Mysore. SLF No. 1668 [Pg.93] .
-
Iqbal Patel, 165, XII Cross, 1St Block, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore. SLF No. 1676 [Pg.94 ] .
-
K.G. Lakshmipathi, Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore-9. SLF No. 1683 [Pg.94] .
-
H.E. Shivarudriah, C/O Rajanna, Avalahally G.E.F. Post, Mysore Road, Bangalore-26. SLF No. 1693 [Pg.95] .
-
B.Nagabhushan, No. 337, 2A Cross, Srinivasa Nagar, Bangalore-50. SLF No. 1699 [Pg.95] .
-
B.K. Manohar, Civil Judge, Holenarasipura. Hassan. SLF No. 1703 [Pg.95] .
-
S.M. Naik, No. 27/61, G.No. 10th Street, Ulsoor, Bangalore-8. SLF No. 1707 [Pg.96] .
-
B.T. Chanal, Additional Munsiff & JMFC, Srirangapatna. SLF No. 1708 [Pg.95] .
-
S.N. Navalagund, Principal Civil Judge, JAMAKHANDI. . SLF No. 1709 [Pg.96] .
-
K.H. Lakshmangowda, No. 20, 1st Floor, D Block, II Stage, 7th Main, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore. SLF No. 1710 [Pg.96] .
-
A.V. Nagarajan, 17/1049, Swathi, 9th Main, 11th Cross, Gokula III Stage, V.V. Mohalla, Mysore. SLF No. 1711 [Pg.96] .
-
Nagappa M. Sogalad, Plot No. 4, CCB No. 414 Scheme No-14 of BUDA, Behind Police Station, Belgaum.-3 . SLF No. 1712 [Pg.96] .
-
R.S. Futane, Principal District & Sessions Judge, CHITRADURGA. SLF No. 1720 [Pg.96] .
-
M.L. Shivanna, Munsiff & JMFC, MADDUR. SLF No. 1725 [Pg.96] .
-
Shekhargowda Patil, Civil Judge & JMFC, BAGALKOTE. SLF No. 1729 [Pg.97] .
-
H.P. Devendraiah, IInd Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore-38. SLF No. 1732 [Pg.97] .
-
H. Ragaiah, 311, 4th Main Road, Lakshmipura, Gavipuram, Bangalore-19. SLF No. 1735 [Pg.97] .
-
K.G. Hosur, Civil Judge & CJM, RAICHUR. SLF No. 1736 [Pg.97] .
-
Vijay Babasaheb Jadhav, Registrar, City Civil Court, Bangalore-9. SLF No. 1738 [Pg.97] .
-
Vijay B. Shiriyannavar, Civil Judge & JMFC, BELLARY. SLF No. 1745 [Pg.98].
-
G. Thimmegowda, 1881, 8th Main, ‘A’ Block, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore-10. SLF No. 1747 [Pg.98] .
-
Siddalingappa Tambad, District Judge, ‘Sneha’, Near Old Income Tax Office, Vidhya Nagar, HUBLI. SLF No. 1754 [Pg.98] .
-
J.V. Angadi hiremath, III Additional civil Judge, BELGAUM. SLF No. 1762 [Pg.99] .
-
Basavanappa Jamadar, Munsiff & JMFC, YADGIR, Gulbarga Dist. SLF No. 1778 [Pg.99] .
-
Suresh D. Paramj, Principal Civil judge, MANDYA. SLF No. 1793 [Pg.100] .
-
N.S. Sangolli, 2211, HAL III Stage, 80 Feet Road, Kodihally Cross, Bangalore-8. SLF No. 1799 [Pg.98] .
-
M.S. Shankar Gulli, Additional Munsiff & JMFC, BELLARY . SLF No. 1811 [Pg.101] .
-
K. Nagarathna, Additional Munsiff & JMFC, MANDYA. SLF No. 1813 [Pg.101] .
-
S.N. Kempegoudar, Civil Judge, ARASIKERE, Hassan District. SLF No. 1819 [Pg.103]
-
Lalitha S. Hujaratti, C/O B.A. Halakeri, MALLASAMUDRA, Gadag Taluk, Dharwad Dist. SLF No. 1822 [Pg.102] .
-
K. Karunakaran, No. 48, II Main Road, Matadahally, Bangalore-32. SLF No. 1849 [Pg.103] .
-
R.S. Patil, Additional Civil Judge, GULBARGA. SLF No. 1874. [Pg. No. 105].
-
S.S. Bali, Munsiff & JMFC, HADAGALI. SLF No. 1875. [Pg. No. 105].
-
Srinivasa, Civil Judge, BASAVA KALYAN, Bidar District. SLF No. 1879. [Pg. No. 105].
-
C.R. Benkanahally, Additional Munsiff & JMFC, RAICHUR. SLF No. 1880. [Pg. No. 105].
-
S.G. Palleda, Munsiff & JMFC, ARASIKERE. SLF No. 1887 [Pg. No. 105].
-
T.H. Narayanagowda, Civil Judge & JMFC, TIPTUR, Tumkur District. SLF No. 1889 [Pg. No. 106].
-
H.R. Srinivas, Munsiff & JMFC, MALUR. Kolar Division. SLF No. 1890 [Pg. No. 106].
-
J. Ninganagouda, Munsiff & JMFC, Tadkal post, Yalburgi Taluk, Raichur District. SLF No. 1895 [Pg. No. 106].
-
N. Sharanappa, Munsiff & JMFC, BADAMI. SLF No. 1908 [Pg. No. 107].
-
Manikappa Patil, 358, 10th Main, II Cross, III Stage, 1st Block, Basaveshwara Nagar,Bangalore. SLF No. 1909 [Pg. No. 107].
-
Basavaraj M. Mekki, 804, 61st Cross, V Block, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore-10. SLF No. 1912 [Pg. No. 107 ] .
-
G.Ramakrishnarao, Principal District & Sessions Judge, SHIMOGA. SLF No. 1865 [Pg. No. 107].
-
L. Basavaiaih, No. 9 A, 1st Stage, Vishweshwara Nagar, MYSORE-8. SLF No. 1922 [Pg. No. 107].
-
A. Krishnappa, No. 1242, II Stage, III Phase, Chandra Layout, BANGALORE 560 040. S.L.F.No. 1927 [Pg. No.108 ].
-
S. Mariyappa, No. 22, Jeevan Bheema Nagar, Bangalore. S.L.F.No. 1932 [Pg. No.108 ].
-
K. Shivaram, District Judge, Bangalore-9. S.L.F.No. 1940 [Pg. No.109 ],
-
M. Sreedevi, Munsiff & JMFC, RAMNAGARAM. S.L.F.No. 1951 [Pg. No.109 ].
-
H. Sathyanarayan Shetty, Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore-9. S.L.F.No. 1952 [Pg. No.109 ].
-
V.G. Sawadkar, S.L.F.No. 2017 [Page 214], Prl. Munsiff & JMFC, Raichur. [Who passed Illegal Order to facilitate Judges Road into GKVK; despite HC Orders]
-
H.M. Ramachandra, S.L.F.No. 2024 [Page 214], *[Suspected to Be District Judge]* , No.15/39, 18th Main Road, 17th Cross, Malleshwaram,Bangalore- 560 003.
-
C.R. Shivapuji, S.L.F.No. 2037 [Page 215], Addl. Munsiff & JMFC, GOKAK.
-
M.S. Nagraj Sharma, S.L.F.No. 2059 [Page 216], Asst. Registrar, Small Cause Court, Bangalore- 560009.
-
M.C. Sachidananda Prasad, S.L.F.No. 2084 [Page 217], Munsiff & JMFC, 905/18B, 4th Main Road, Vidhyaranyapuram, Mysore.
-
N.P. Vamadeva, S.L.F.No. 2092 [Page 218], Suspected to be Judicial Officer or Judge, No. 840, 5th Main Road, 5th Cross, M.C. Layout, Vijaynagara, Bangalore-40.
-
J. Shamanna, S.L.F.No.2095 [Page 218], No. 5, 7th Cross, Ist Main, Sampangiram Nagar, Bangalore-560027.
-
B.V. Uma Naidu, S.L.F.No. 2135 [Page 220], No. 133, 4th ‘A’ Main, ‘A’ Section,Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore-560064. [Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative]
-
Ramrao Kulkarni, S.L.F.No. 2182 [Page 223], Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative, 24/A, Raghvendra Nilaya, 4thCross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003.
-
H. Rajshekharreddy, S.L.F.No. 2183 [Page 223], Sheristedar, Prl. Munsiff Court, Bellary.
-
Syed Amil Ali, S.L.F.No. 2200 [Page 224], Civil Judge, Ramanagaram.
-
Shika Amanulla, S.L.F.No. 2202 [Page 224], Sheristedar, City Civil Court, Bangalore- 560 009.
-
K. Suryanarayan, S.L.F.No. 2204 [Page 224], Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative, Door No. 51, Ward No. 15, Near Water Tank, Miller Pet, Bellary.
-
S.N. Vadnikop, S.L.F.No. 2208, [Page 224], 1st Addl. Judge, Small Cause Court, Bangalore-560 009.
-
Mallikarjuana Kinikeri, S.L.F.No. 2228 [Page 226], Munsiff & JMFC, Muddebihal.
-
K. Srinivas, S.L.F.No. 2230 [Page 226], Chief Librarian, High Court, Bagalore-1.
-
P.S. Hiremath, S.L.F.No. 2281 [Page 228], Asst. Registrar, Lokayukta, M.S. Building, Bagalore-1.
-
Seelavathi, S.L.F.No. 2282 [Page 228], Munsiff & JMFC, Nelamangala.
-
Yacoob Husain,S.L.F.No. 2288 [Page 229], Court Officer, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-560 001.
-
N.H. Savalagi, S.L.F.No. 2290 [Page 229], III Addl. Civil Judge, Bijapur.
-
A.C. Purad, S.L.F.No.2291 [Page 229], Munsiff & JMFC, Koppal.
-
Jayatheertha N. Havanoor, S.L.F.No. 2296 [Page 229], 18 th Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Bangalore-560 009.
-
T.N. Manjula Devi, S.L.F.No.2304 [Page 230],Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative, No. 28, Khamadhenu, III Cross, Judicial Officers Layout, RMV-II Stage, Bangalore.
-
H.M. Bhajanti, S.L.F.No. 2305, [Page 230], Adress not mentioned in Members list.
-
K.S. Kulkarni, S.L.F.No. 2307 [Page 230],Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative,No. 260/2, Venatpeth, Bagalkot.
-
Javid Pasha, S.L.F.No. 2318 [Page 230],Prl. Munsiff, Madhugiri, Tumkur District.
-
Basavantraya Patil, S.L.F.No. 2326 [Page 231], Xith Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore-560 009.
-
P.S. Shivaprasad Naik, S.L.F.No. 2339 [Page 232], Munsiff & JMFC, Virajpeth, Dist: Coorg.
-
S.S. Nagrale, S.L.F.No. 2345 [Pg. No.232 ],Prl. Civil Judge & C.J.M., Bijapur.
-
S. Renukaprasad, S.L.F.No. 2349 [Pg. No.232 ],Prl. Munsiff, Davangere.
-
Ananth H. Sathvik, S.L.F.No.2364 [Pg. No.233 ], Munsiff & JMFC, Hassan.
-
Divakar Rao,S.L.F.No.2371 [Pg. No.233 ], Civil Judge, Udupi.
-
Somaraju, S.L.F.No. 2375 [Pg. No.234 ], Addl. Munsiff & JMFC, K.G.F., Kolar District.
-
K.H. Malleshappa, S.L.F.No. 2381 [Pg. No.234 ], Prl. Civil Judge, Hubli.
-
B.V. Patil, S.L.F.No. 2388 [Pg. No.234 ], Munsiff & JMFC, Kustagi.
-
Smt. Lingamma Patil, S.L.F.No. 2389 [Pg. No.234 ], Addl. Munsiff & JMFC III, Raichur.
-
V.S. Dharwadkar, S.L.F.No. 2390 [Pg. No.234 ], Munsiff & JMFC, Sindnoor.
-
A.T. Munolli, S.L.F.No.2400 [Pg. No.235 ],III Addl. Civil Judge, Mysore.
-
Kulkarni Ramrao, S.L.F.No.2402 [Pg. No.235 ], Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative, Tiruvihal Post, Sindhnoor Taluk, Raichur District.
-
K.N.Naganagouda, S.L.F.No. 2406 [Pg. No.235],Munsiff & JMFC, Sedum, Gulbarga District.
-
C.N. Raghvendra, S.L.F.No.2409 [Pg. No.235 ],Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative, 11/42, Devanga 1st Street, Behind Ganapati Temple, Chamarajnagar- 571313.
-
A.B. Wadeyar, S.L.F.No. 2418 [Pg. No.236 ], VI Addl. Judge, Small Cause Court, BANGALORE 560 009.
-
M.A. Sindhoor, S.L.F.No. 2420 [Pg. No.236 ],Munsiff & JMFC, Raibagh.
-
N.M. Sajjan, S.L.F.No. 2427 [Pg. No.236 ],CAO, District & Sessions Court, Bidar.
-
B.M. Angadi, S.L.F.No. 2429 [Pg. No.237 ],VIII Addl. Judge, Small Cause Court, BANGALORE 560 009.
-
A.M. Pattar, S.L.F.No. 2430 [Pg. No.237 ],Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative, No. 39-62, 1st E Cross, 6th Main Road, Ramco Layout, Vijaynagar, BANGALORE 560 040.
-
Shivanand N. Dhage, S.L.F.No. 2432 [Pg. No.237 ],Munsiff & JMFC IInd Court, Mysore.
-
B.S. Sheshachala, S.L.F.No. 2445 [Pg. No.237 ],Asst. Court Officer, Karnataka High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.
-
S.K. Suresh, S.L.F.No. 2450 [Pg. No.238 ], Munsiff & JMFC, Anekal.
-
A.K. Bhat, S.L.F.No. 2452 [Pg. No.238 ],Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative, No. 1554, 36 ‘F’ Cross, 4th ‘T’ Block, Jayanagar, , BANGALORE 560 041.
-
Shetkar Subhash,S.L.F.No. 2479 [Pg. .239 ],Addl. City civil & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE 560 009.
-
S.R. Somashekhara, S.L.F.No.2484[Pg. 240 ], Civil Judge, Virajpet.
-
Somashekhriaha ,S.L.F.No. 2485 [Pg. No.240 ],Munsiff & JMFC, Channagiri, Shimoga District.
-
D. Basavraju, S.L.F.No. 2505 [Pg. No.241 ], District Judge, BANGALORE 560 001.
-
K.M. Hadimani,S.L.F.No.2515 [Pg. No.241 ], Civil Judge [Jr], MM Traffic 1st Court, Bangalore
-
Prakash B. Kathare, S.L.F.No. 2532 [Pg. No.243 ], District Judge, K.A.T., M.S. Building, BANGALORE 560 001.
-
G.D. Narasimha Murty, S.L.F.No. 2533 [Pg. No.243 ], Civil Judge, Bangalore.
-
A.S. Bellunke, S.L.F.No. 2535 [Pg. No.243 ], Civil Judge, Bangalore-560009.
-
Basavaraj B. Belavagi, S.L.F.No. 2537 [Pg. No.243 ],Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Kolar Gold Fields.
-
Laxman Malavalli, S.L.F.No. 2539 [Pg. No.243 ], Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], Malur.
-
Ashok S. Gadag, S.L.F.No. 2541 [Pg. No.243 ], Civil Judge, Bangalore.
-
S.B. Gunji Ghavi, S.L.F.No. 2549 [Pg. No.243 ], Civil Judge, Gulbarga.
-
B.S. Naik, S.L.F.No. 2550 [Pg. No.244 ], Civil Judge, Gulbarga.
-
Rajmohan Srivastava, S.L.F.No. 2551 [Pg. No.244 ], Prl. CJ, Gulbarga.
-
Chandrashekhara Patil, S.L.F.No. 2562 [Pg. No.244 ], C.J., Bangalore.
-
Sanganna B. Patil, S.L.F.No. 2563 [Pg. No.244 ], C J, Bangalore.
-
H.C. Parshi, S.L.F.No. 2565 [Pg. No.244 ],CJ [Sr. Divn], 1st ACMM, Bangalore.
-
Shingoti Abdul Rasheed, S.L.F.No. 2568 [Pg. No.245 ], Prl. Munsiff, Bagalkot.
-
S.B. Angadi, S.L.F.No. 2572 [Pg. No.245 ],Civil Judge, Sr.Divn. District Court. BANGALORE 560 009.
-
Basavraj S. Sappannavar, S.L.F.No. 2574 [Pg. No.245 ],Civil Judge, Bhdravati.
-
M.L. Raghunath,S.L.F.No. 2576 [Pg. No.245 ],Civil Judge, Hoskote.
-
Sudheer, S.L.F.No. 2569 [Pg. No.245 ],Civil Judge, Koppal.
-
Shankar,S.L.F.No. 2585 [Pg.245 ], Addl. C J [Jr. Divn.], Jamakhandi.
-
Sadanand Narayan Nayak, Employee Membership No. 2590 [Pg.246 ],Civil Judge, Kadur.
-
T Hariyappa Gowda, S.L.F.No. 2594 [Pg..246 ], Prl. C J, Bangalore.
-
N.S. Neginal, S.L.F.No. 2596 [Pg. 246 ], Civil Judge, [Sr. Divn], Bangalore.
-
U Narayan Ganiga, S.L.F.No. 2600 [Pg. 246 ],C A O, Dist. Court, Gulbarga.
-
S. Surgod, S.L.F.No. 2593 [Pg.246 ],Xth Addl. CMM, Bangalore.
-
Prakash Kumar, S.L.F.No. 2595 [Pg.246 ], Addl. CMM, Bangalore.
-
Jeevan Rao R. Kulkarni, S.L.F.No. 2597 [Pg.246 ], Civil Judge, [Sr. Divn], Bangalore.
-
G.V. Hegde, S.L.F.No. 2605 [Pg.247 ],1st Addl. D J, Kolar.
-
Dundappa Samappa Muttur, S.L.F.No. 2607 [Pg.247 ], C.J.M, Bangalore.
-
Sangappa Nagappa Gaddi, S.L.F.No. 2613 [Pg.247 ],C J, Kolar.
-
S B N Prakash, S.L.F.No. 2614 [Pg.247 ],District Judge, Gulbarga.
-
Shrikant Shimpi, S.L.F.No. 2617 [Pg.247 ],Civil Judge, [Jr. Divn], Navalgund.
-
P Narayan Acharya, S.L.F.No. 2619 [Pg.247 ],Prl. C J & JMFC, Tumkur.
-
N. Lakshmanappa, S.L.F.No. 2623 [Pg.248 ], CMO CJS Court, Shimoga.
-
A.N. Pattan, S.L.F.No. 2625 [Pg.248 ],C J, Basavkalyan.
-
Manyali Premavathi, S.L.F.No. 2626[Pg.248 ],C J, Jr. Divn., Gulbarga.
-
Shivanagouda, S.L.F.No. 2627 [Pg.248 ],1st Addl. C J, Gulbarga.
-
K.N. Lakshminarayan, S.L.F.No. 2629 [Pg.248],Civil Judge, [Jr. Divn], Jewargi.
-
V.N. Ravindra, S.L.F.No. 2630 [Pg.248 ],VIII Addl. C.M.M, Bangalore.
-
K.P. Dinesh, S.L.F.No. 2632 [Pg.248 ], Addl. Civil Judge, [Jr. Divn], Anekal.
-
Krishna Dutt Kalaskar, S.L.F.No. 2640 [Pg.249 ],C.J & JMFC, Channapatna.
-
N. Prahladacharya, S.L.F.No. 2644 [Pg.249 ],District Judge, 43/13, Kamakya Extension, 4th Cross, 5th Block, B.S.K-III Stage,III Phase, BANGALORE. 560 085.
-
B.N. Poojary, S.L.F.No. 2649 [Pg.249 ], Civil Judge & CJM, Koppal.
-
N.C. Srinivas, S.L.F.No. 2652 [Pg.249 ],C J, [Jr. Divn], Channarayapatna.
-
Nabira Bool Mamdapur, S.L.F.No. 2660 [Pg.250 ],CJ & JMFC, Shikaripura.
-
H.S. Ramakrishna, S.L.F.No. 2665 [Pg.250 ],CJ & JMFC, Siddalaghatta.
-
Majage Nijagundappa, S.L.F.No. 2667 [Pg.250], Prl. CJ, Chintamani.
-
Tippanna Avin, S.L.F.No. 2671 [Pg.250 ],C J [Sr. Divn], Spl. Court, Bangalore. 560009.
-
A.V. Chandrashekhar, S.L.F.No. 2675 [Pg.250 ],Addl. City Civil & Session Judicial, Bangalore. 560009.
-
Khan Liyakhat Alikhan, S.L.F.No. 2680 [Pg.251 ],Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Bangalore.
-
Rajshekhar Malleshappa Shetty, S.L.F.No. 2684 [Pg.251 ], Civil Judge, S C C, Bangalore. 560001.
-
Vishwanath B. Surya Vanshi, S.L.F.No. 2689 [Pg.251 ], Prl. CJ & JMFC, Mudhol.
-
Rajeshwari N. Hegde, S.L.F.No. 2691 [Pg.251 ], Civil Judge, Mysore.
-
M.C. Biradar, S.L.F.No. 2702 [Pg.252 ], Prl. CJ, [Jr. Divn], kolar.
-
Jagdeesh S. Deshpande, S.L.F.No. 2704 [Pg.252 ],Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Bangalore.
-
Subhash Yellappa Irannavar, S.L.F.No. 2708 [Pg.252 ], Addl. C.J, Kolar.
-
S.R. Tulasi Ram, S.L.F.No. 2717 [Pg.253 ], C J, Kanakapura.
-
A.S. Patil, S.L.F.No. 2719 [Pg.253 ], Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Athani.
-
H.B. Khadrapathi, S.L.F.No. 2724 [Pg.253 ],Civil Judge [Jr.Divn], JMFC, K.R. Nagar. Mysore District.
-
Prakash K, S.L.F.No. 2726 [Pg.253 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], Periyapatna.
-
Pandurang Singri, S.L.F.No. 2728 [Pg.254 ],1st Addl. CJ & CJM, Bijapur.
-
Mahadevegowda, S.L.F.No. 2729 [Pg.254 ],CJ & Prl. JMFC, Tarikere.
-
Prakash Nadiger, S.L.F.No. 2731 [Pg.254 ], Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Honnali.
-
R.G. Desai, S.L.F.No. 2732 [Pg.254 ],CJ & JMFC, Sindhanoor.
-
K.S. Bilagi, Pro C J [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, HONNALI.
-
Mohammed Mujahid Ulla, S.L.F.No. 2734 [Pg.254 ],Addl. Civil Judge, [Jr. Divn], Chintamani.
-
Rajendra Badamikar, S.L.F.No. 2737, [Pg.25 ], Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], Chittapur.
-
Gireyya, S.L.F.No. 2739 [Pg.254 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Sindhnoor.
-
Keshav Deshpande, S.L.F.No. 2744 [Pg.254 ],Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], S C C, BANGALORE.
-
G. Basavraj, S.L.F.No. 2747 [Pg.255 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], JMFC. Yellapur.
-
K.B. Krishna Murthy, S.L.F.No. 2748 [Pg.255 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC. Ramadurga.
-
Shivanand Katti, S.L.F.No. 2750 [Pg.255 ],Civil Judge [Sr. Divn] & Addl. CJM, Yadgir.
-
B.V. Renuka, S.L.F.No. 2752 [Pg.255 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Manya.
-
J.M. Khaji, S.L.F.No. 2753 [Pg.255 ],CJ & JMFC, Mandya.
-
Siddappa Maradi, S.L.F.No. 2759 [Pg.255 ], Civil Judge [Sr. Divn] JMFC, Ramnagar.
-
R.B. Dhrma Goudar, S.L.F.No. 2760 [Pg.255 ], Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Kushtagi.
-
K.C. Ramakrishniaha, S.L.F.No. 2771 [Pg.256 ], Civil Judge [Sr. Divn] , Hunsur.
-
Niyaz Ahmed S Datedr, S.L.F.No. 2772 [Pg.256 ],Prl. CJ, [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Chikkodi.
-
Savitri Venkataramana Bhat, S.L.F.No. 2780 [Pg.256 ],Divil Judge, [Jr. Divn], Mysore.
-
B.S. Bharati, S.L.F.No. 2781 [Pg.256 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] , Kundapur.
-
M.S. Kanti, S.L.F.No. 2782 [Pg.257 ],C.J. [Sr. Divn.], Addl C J, Holenarasipura.
-
B.G. Jattennavar, S.L.F.No. 2788 [Pg.257 ],C.J. [Sr. Divn.] & CJFM, Mangalore.
-
M.G. Sudheendra, Employee Membership No. 2789 [Pg.257 ],Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bidar.
-
G.K. Gokale, S.L.F.No. 2793 [Pg.257 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] ,. Ramanagar.
-
K. Govindarajalu, S.L.F.No. 2794 [Pg.257 ],1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belgaum.
-
G. Nanjundiaha,S.L.F.No. 2807 [Pg.258 ],Addl. Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] JMFC, Ranebennur.
-
Balappa Karabasappa Bhuthe, S.L.F.No. 2812 [Pg.258 ],CJ [ Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli.
-
Fashappa K Bhute, S.L.F.No. 2813 [Pg.258 ],CJ [ Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Ankola.
-
Kukkaje Ramkrishna Bhat, S.L.F.No. 2816 [Pg.258 ],District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
-
Karabasappa Mattur, S.L.F.No. 280 [Pg.2817 ],Prl. C J, [Jr. Divn], Kundapur.
-
Narayan Hegde, S.L.F.No. 2821 [Pg.259 ],CJ [ Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Mangalore.
-
Lavanya Latha, S.L.F.No. 2826 [Pg.259 ],II Addl. CJ, [JD] & JMFC, Tumkur.
-
Rachappa A Chiniwal, S.L.F.No. 2831 [Pg.259 ],Judge, Court of Small Cause, Mysore.
-
Shivanna, S.L.F.No. 2832 [Pg.259 ],CJ [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Devanahally.
-
Krishnaji Asode, S.L.F.No. 2833 [Pg.259 ],MM III Court, Bangalore.
-
Pampapati, S.L.F.No. 2838 [Pg.260 ],CJ [Sr. Divn] & JMFC, Chikkaballapura.
-
Donekallu Veeranna,S.L.F.No. 2839 [Pg.260 ],Addl. CJ [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Doddaballapura.
-
C.V. Margoor, S.L.F.No. 2841 [Pg.260 ],CJ [Sr. Divn] & JMFC, Chintamani.
-
Prabhavati M. Hiremath, S.L.F.No. 2850 [Pg.260 ],CJ [Jr. Divn], Gulbarga.
-
C Rajashekhar, S.L.F.No. 2851 [Pg.260 ],1st Addl. CJ [ Jr. Divn] & JMFC,Tumkur.
-
N. Santosh Kumar Shetty, S.L.F.No. 2862. ADDL CJ [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, BAILHONGAL.
-
K. Shivalinge Gowda, S.L.F.No. 2866. CJ [Sr. Divn] & ACJM, PUTTUR.
-
S.H. Mittalkad, S.L.F.No. 2857. CJ [Sr. Divn], Bangalore.
-
P.S. Gundwade, S.L.F.No. 2863. D J. President, District Consumer. BIDAR.
-
B.R. Srinivas. S.L.F.No. 2865. High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.560001.
-
Naik Ravi Manjappa, SLF No. 2872. Prl C J [Jr. Divn]. PUTTUR.
-
K.R. Nagraja. SLF No. 2882. 1st Addl CJ [Jr. Divn], TUMKUR.
-
Vijaylakshmi Sangapprupana. SLF No. 2875. 1st Addl CJ [Jr. Divn], HUBLI.
-
G.S. Balagangadhara, SLF No. 2881. Addl CJ [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, BAGALKOT.
-
M Mahadevaiah, SLF No. 2883. Pro Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], SHIMOGA.
-
Chandrashekhar B Hippargi, S.L.F.No. 2891. Addl Civil Judge & JMFC. TUMKUR.
-
K Subramanya, S.L.F.No. 2902. 3rd FMFC. MANGALORE.
-
V.H. Ramachandra, S.L.F.No. 2899. Civil Judge [Sr. Divn]. BELGAUM.
-
B Narayanappa, S.L.F.No. 2901. C J [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, SINDHNUR.
-
M Bhrungesh, S.L.F.No. 2903. Civil Judge [Jr. Divn]. KUNIGAL.
-
K Krishna Murthy, S.L.F.No. 2920. Civil Judge & JMFC [Jr. Divn]. Pavgada.
-
Neelappa N Yelavatti, S.L.F.No. 2922. C J [Jr. Divn] & JMFC. SANDUR.
-
G Narahari, S.L.F.No. 2923. Prl D J. KOLAR.
-
S.G. Birala Dinni, S.L.F.No. 2928. C J [Sr. Divn]. Small Causes Court. Bangalore.
-
K.S. Thimmanachar, S.L.F.No. 2934. Civil Judge [Jr. Divn]. JMFC. KUNIGAL.
-
Somalingappa Channappa Ingalagi. S.L.F.No. 2933. Civil Judge [Sr. Divn]. Bangalore.
-
S Nagashri, S.L.F.No. 2953. CK & JMFC [Jr. Divn] II Court. DHARWAD.
-
M Komalatha, S.L.F.No. 2956. Civil Judge [Jr. Divn]. Bangalore.
-
Krishnegowda, S.L.F.No. 2958. P S District & Sessions Court. CHIKKAMAGALUR.
-
Ashok Murari, S.L.F.No. 2992. District Judge, City Civil Court, Bangalore-560009.
-
Shankar Gowda V Patil. District Judge.. H.No. 5/A, Ist Main Road, NGEF Layout. Nagarbhavi. Bangalore.
-
Sri. M.S. Balakrishna, S.L.F.No. 3015 [Page.271 ],II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mangalore. D.K. District. [Who bought Dattu’s first site & now Trying TN CM Case] .
-
H.G. Nagarathna, S.L.F.No. 3049 [Page.272 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Division], Addl. Secretary, Law Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560001.
-
H.T. Nagendrappa, S.L.F.No. 3057 [Page.273 ],C.A.O., District Court, Davangere.
-
S. Gopalappa,S.L.F.No. 3063 [Page.273 ],Civil Judge [Sr. Division], Bellary.
-
H.G. Vijaykumari, S.L.F.No. 3078 [Page.274 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], JMFC II Court, Mysore.
-
Channabasappa V. Linge Reddy, S.L.F.No. 3084[Page. 274],District Judge, Gulbarga.
-
B. Nandakumar, S.L.F.No. 3086 [Page. 274],Civil Judge [Jr. Division], & JMFC, KANAKAPURA. Karnataka.
-
V.P. Jehangir, S.L.F.No. 3091[Page. 274], 17th Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Bangalore-9.
-
Karanappa Rastapur, S.L.F.No. 3096 [Page.275 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], CMM, N.T. Road, Bangalore.
-
K.S. Venkoba Rao, S.L.F.No. 3099 [Page.275 ],3rd ACMM, N.T. Road, Bangalore.
-
Padmaraj N. Desai, S.L.F.No. 3103 [Page.275 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], Assistant Director, Karnataka judicial Academy, Bangalore
-
Devender Ramachandra Renke, S.L.F.No.3104 [Page.275 ],Civil Judge [Sr. Division], Law Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-1.
-
A. Lourde Mariyappa, S.L.F.No. 3108 [Page. 275 ],Additional Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Nanjangud. Karnataka.
-
Somanath R. Sindgi,S.L.F.No. 3109 [Page.276], Addl CJM, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.
-
I.F Bidari, S.L.F.No. 3115 [Page.276 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Hukkeri, Karnataka.
-
H.S. Sabbannachar,S.L.F.No.3116 [Page.276 ], XVI Addl. Judge, Small Cause Court, Bangalore.
-
Girimallappa Kumbar, S.L.F.No.3129 [Page.277 ],Civil Judge [Sr. Division], VII ACMM, Bangalore-2.
-
Jagdish Chikkannavar, S.L.F.No. 3130 [Page.277 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], XII ACMM, Bangalore-2.
-
Biradar Bheemashankar Channabasappa, ES.L.F.No. 3139 [Page.277 ], Civil Judge [Jr. Divn]. SEDAM. Karnataka.
-
Mohammed Khan Pathan, S.L.F.No. 3141 [Page.277 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC Court, Savadatti-591126.
-
Smt. S. Shobha, S.L.F.No. 3142 [Page.277 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Kunigal, Karnataka.
-
Shashikala M.A. S.L.F.No. 3144 [Page.277 ], District Judge, City Civil Court, Bangalore-9.
-
N. Krishnaiah, S.L.F.No. 3146 [Page.278 ], Addl. CJ [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Chikkaballapur. Karnataka.
-
A. Gurumurty, S.L.F.No. 3154 [Page.278 ], DESIGNATION ?
-
M. Chandrashekhara Reddy, S.L.F.No. 3155 [Page.278 ],No. 5/13, 16th Cross, Hosur, Tamil Nadu.
-
Harish Kumar, S.L.F.No. 3156 [Page.278 ],3434 D. ‘T’ Cross, R.P.C. Layout, Vijaynagar, Bangalore.
-
Ravindra M. Vaidya, S.L.F.No. 3164 [Page.279 ], 1stAddl. VIII CMM, Bangalore-2.
-
Narendra Kumar Basavraj Gunaki, S.L.F.No.3166 [Page.279 ], 24th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore-9
-
Rajendra Ankalkote, ES.L.F.No. 3177 [Page.279 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], Registrar, Small Cause Court, Bangalore-9.
-
Yogish N. Karagudiri, S.L.F.No.3178 [Page.279 ],Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Bangalore-9.
-
B.S. Jayshree, S.L.F.No. 3180 [Page.280 ],Civil Judge, [Jr. Divn], Anekal. Bangalore.
-
Prabhavati G, S.L.F.No. 3184 [Page.280 ],MMTC-III, Bangalore.
-
Sadashiviaha Gangadhara Hiremath, S.L.F.No. 3185 [Page.280 ], Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Bangalore.
-
Moureshappa Biliki, S.L.F.No. 3189 [Page.280 ],XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
-
S.H. Renuka Devi, S.L.F.No. 3193 [Page.280 ],Civil Judge & JMFC, Chitradurga, Karnataka.
-
K.B.M. Patel,S.L.F.No. 3194 [Page.280 ],Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Small Cause Court, Bangalore-9.
-
A.K. Naveen Kumari, S.L.F.No. 3195 [Page.280 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Thuruvekere, TUMKUR District.
-
K.M. Gangadhar, S.L.F.No. 3196 [Page.280 ],Civil Judge & JMFC [Jr. Divn], Pandavpura.
-
C. Sudheer Kumar, S.L.F.No. 3198 [Page.281 ],District Judge, Bangalore-1.
-
J.N. Subramanya,S.L.F.No. 3199 [Page. 281 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], Kalaghatagi, Dharwad.
-
Deshpande G.S, S.L.F.No.3201 [Page. 281],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], JMFC, Holalkere.
-
Sumangala Basavanna, S.L.F.No. 3202 [Page. 281],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & III Addl. JMFC, Raichur.
-
D.T. Rangaswamy, S.L.F.No. 3203[Page.281 ],Civil Judge [Sr. Divn] & JMFC, Sira.
-
Timmegowda, S.L.F.No. 3206 [Page.281 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, KARWAR.
-
Shubhagowdar, S.L.F.No. 3210 [Page. 281],Civil Judge [Sr. Divn] & JMFC, TIPTUR.
-
Patil Virupaksha Gowda, S.L.F.No.3216 [Page.281 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], M.S. Buiding, Bangalore-1.
-
H.D. Sandesh, S.L.F.No. 3217 [Page.282 ],District Judge, Mandya.
-
Basavraj A. Patil, S.L.F.No. 3219[Page. 282], 21st Dist. & Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Bangalore-9.
-
Ashok G. Nijagannavar, S.L.F.No.3220 [Page. 282], DESIGNATION
-
Gollappa G. Nijagannavar, Dist. & Sessions Judge, XIII Adl. City Civil Judge,Mayo hall, Bangalore.
-
Usha Rani Nemiraj Shetty, S.L.F.No. 3221 [Page 282 ], Prl. CJ [Jr. Divn], JMFC, DODDABALLAPUR.
-
Roopa Shivappa Naik, S.L.F.No. 3223 [Page 282 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, II Court, SHIMOGA.
-
Srinivas Harish Kumar, S.L.F.No. 3227 [Page 282 ],District & Sessions Judge, TUMKUR.
-
Virupaksha H. Sambrani, S.L.F.No. 3230 [Page 282 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], Bangalore.
-
A.K. Mulla, S.L.F.No. 3231[Page 282 ],Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], 5th CMM, N.T. Road, Bangalore-1.
-
G.G. Kuruvatti, S.L.F.No. 3234[Page 283 ],Prl. Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALUR.
-
Sadananda Doddamani, S.L.F.No. 3239 [Page 283 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], OOD Special, MM Traffic, Bangalore.
-
T.G. Shivashankaregowda, S.L.F.No. 3240 [Page 283 ],Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], & CJM, HASSAN.
-
P. Srinivasa, S.L.F.No. 3241[Page 283 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Bantwal-574 219.
-
Radha H.R, S.L.F.No. 3243 [Page 283 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Devanahalli.
-
Gollappa Ayyappa Mulamani, S.L.F.No. 3244[Page 283 ],Prl. Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], GULBARGA.
-
S.A. Nalawada, S.L.F.No.3246 [Page 283 ],Prl. Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], TUMKUR.
-
S.R. Prakash, S.L.F.No. 3247[Page 283 ],P.S. Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC Court, HOSKOTE.
-
N. Sunil Kumar Singh, Employee Membership No. 3248[Page 283 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, NANJANGUD.
-
A.N. Deshpande, S.L.F.No. 3249 [Page 283 ],District Judge, Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-1, Mysore.
-
Sri. K. Somshekhar, S.L.F.No.3251[Page. 283 ], District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
-
Shekhar Gowda,S.L.F.No.3253 [Page 284 ],District & Sessions Court, Bangalore-9.
-
Patil Nagalinganagowda, S.L.F.No. 3262 [Page 284 ],(i) Civil Judge & JMFC, II Court, Davangere(ii) ACMM-VIII Court, Bangalore (iii) presently serving as ACMM-VIII, Magistrate Court Complex, Bangalore; [Who had “Prepared Charges; under pressure from High Court Judges etc., without even hearing].[Trial Court Judge in : Lokayukta Complaint Vs Digvijay Mote ] .
-
Shivaputrappa Yamunappa Kumbar, S.L.F.No. 3263 [Page 284 ], District & Sessions Judge, V FTC, Gulbarga.
-
K.G. Shanthi, S.L.F.No. 3265 [Page 284 ],M.M. Traffic-II, N.T. Road, Bangalore.
-
Shrikanth Babladil, S.L.F.No. 3269 [Page 284 ],7th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore-9.
-
H.V. Prabhakar Shastry, S.L.F.No. 3270 [Page 284 ],District Judge, Gulbarga.
-
A.G. Gangadhara, S.L.F.No. 3276, [Page.285 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Shimoga.
-
S.Rajanna [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 14 [Pg. No. 01].
-
S. Appanna, [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 18 [Pg. No. 01].
-
A. Prema [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 23 [Pg. No. 02].
-
R. Srinivas [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 24 [Pg. No. 02]
-
Suguna [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 26 [Pg. No. 02]
-
Ravikumar [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 27 [Pg. No. 02]
-
Shashikala [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 28 [Pg. No. 02].
-
Basavaraju
-
Manjunath
-
Roopa
-
Wing Commander Asdhok Mehta
-
A.R. Bhagyamma
-
S. Anilkumar
-
N.K.Nanjaiah
-
T.S.Ameer Jan
-
S.Y.Kala
-
Rani sateesh [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 676 [Pg. No. 29].
39-O: Suspicious Members Names
-
H Veeriaha, Police Inspector, High Court of Karnataka. Bangalore -560 001. SLF No. 0335, [Pg No.019].
-
K Diwakar Shetty, Police Inspector, High Court of Karnataka. Bangalore -560 001. SLF No. 0336, [Pg No.019].
-
S Doreraju, *Police, High Court Vigilance*, High Court of Karnataka. Bangalore -560 001. *Employee Membership No.0441, [Pg No.025]* [ Present SPP ; he agreed on 20 Jul, 2013 ]
-
Ms. Priyadarshini Kharge
-
C.M. Chandrashekhar, Court Officer, High Court of Karnataka. Bangalore -560 001. *Employee Membership No.0509, [Pg No.029]*.
-
137. *Syed Rehamatulla*, Employee Membership No. *0516*, *[Pg No.029] *F/O Sri. Syed Rizathullaha, Son of *Syed Rehamatulla*,*Employee Membership Number not known; [ but he or his relatives are suspected held or holding sites,*“International Corruption Hunters Alliance, Washington, U.S.A.,; Volunteer” and Public Relation Officer Cum Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Karnataka , Lokayukta, M.S. Building, Bangalore- 560 001 ].
-
Syed Rehamatulla, Employee Membership No. 0516, [Pg No.029] F/O Sri. Syed Rizathullaha, Son of Syed Rehamatulla, Employee Membership Number not known; [ but he or his relatives are suspected held or holding sites, “International Corruption Hunters Alliance, Washington, U.S.A.,; Volunteer” and Public Relation Officer Cum Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Karnataka Lokayukta, M.S. Building,Bangalore- 560 001 ].
-
Smt T.N. Usha, No. 1, Race Cource Road, Bangalore 560 001. Employee Membership No.731[Page. 41] .
-
D. Krishnappa, Former Prl Civil & CJM, Shimoga. Karnataka. Employee Membership No.755 [Page. 43 ]. [in 2004, My Family was prosecuted by this man & N. Venktachala; while he was Lokayukta Registrar. He came to adduce evidence to Court!]
-
189. *Yeshodhara Doddakalegowda, (i) W/O Justice Doddakalegowda, Retired Judge, High Court of Karnataka. Bangalore -560 001. (ii) No. 1412, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065. Employee Membership No. 825 [Pg. No. 047 ].
-
Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, Deputy Secretary, Law Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore. 560 001. SLF No. 0966 [Page.054 ],. [Present BBMP /UD. Adv. in 40994/02]
-
E. Achutan, No. 8, 3rd Cross, Ist Main, Ist Stage, 6th Phase, W C Road, Bangalore-44.SLF No. 1238 [Page.069].
-
A.H.Naik, Deputy Director of Prosecution, Cauveri Bhavan, 6th Floor, Bangalore-9. SLF No. 1263 [Page.071].
-
N. Krishnappa, 61, Shamanna Garden, Old Mill Road, St. Thomas Town Post, Bangalore-84. SLF No. 1276 [Page.072].
-
D’souza Robinson, Additional Secretary, D.L.P.A & P.S. to The Minister of Labour, Bangalore-1. SLF No. 1303 [Page.073] [Built house in Site / Land of Vijay kumar, yet in Ltigation in 2013 !]
-
B.A. Muchandi, District Judge, TUMKUR. SLF No. 1339 [Page.075]. [ARE-2 who hushed-up with G.P.S]. [Signed Sale deed as witness to HC Judge M.P. Chinnappa; a Petnr in 7105/07].
-
Raghvendra Upadhya, Judgement writer, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-1. SLF No. 1347 **[Page.075*]. [P.S. To H.C CJ suspected; who is allotted with site in Land of which case of Vijay Kumar & Built , but land yet to aqcuire illegally as litigation is on-going ].
-
B.N.Balakrishna, City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore-9. SLF No. 1386 [Page.078]. [One who bought Dattu’s first site ?]
-
C.Y. Illur, Civil Judge, BELGAUM. SLF No. 1410 [Page.079]. [ARE-2 who hushed-up with G.P.S].
-
M.S. Hegde Nagre, Civil Judge & JMFC, PUTTUR. SLF No. 1467[Page.082]. [Who got loan approved, while in Lokayuktha, in site on land which was coeced to Compromise ] .
-
A. Venkatachala, SLF No. 1617 [Pg. No.090 ] .1701, 5th ‘A’ cross, 14th Main, BSK 1st Stage , II Block, Bangalore. [S/O N.Venkatachala; suspected].
-
B. Yoginath, III Additional judge, Small Cause Court, Bangalore-9. SLF No. 1723 [Pg.96] . [Lokayukta Registrar, after M.K.N.Moole .2001-13 ]
-
S.A. Pandit, S.L.F.No. 2112 [Page 219], Munsiff & JMFC, Tiptur, Tumkur District. [who was Lokayukta, ARE-2 ; gave certified copies of BCD-64 834 pages in 2012 ] [Whose Sale Deed was registrered during BCD enquiry].
-
S.K. Venkatareddy, S.L.F.No. 2509 [Pg. 241 ],District Judge, Bangalore.
-
Khan Liyakhat Alikhan, S.L.F.No. 2680 [Pg.251 ],Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Bangalore. [Who released Adv Assn Secretary on Bail in Pol Vs Adv ].
-
Sri. K. Palakshappa, S.L.F.No. 2994 [Pg No.268], Civil Judge [Jr. Division], Harapanahally. Karnataka [Supected Judge heard Lokayukta Case against Mote Family from 2004 to 2006 ? ].
-
K.S. Mudgal, S.L.F.No.3100 [Page.275 ], (i) District & sessions Judge, city Civil Court, Bangalore. (ii) Registrar [Judicial] of Karnataka High Court, Karnataka High Court, BANGALORE 560 001. (iii) Principal Law Secretary, Karnataka Government, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-1.
-
Jagdish Chikkannavar, S.L.F.No. 3130 [Page.277 ],Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], XII ACMM, Bangalore-2.
-
P. Krishna Bhat, S.L.F.No. 3197[Page.281 ], (i) District & Sessions Judge, Rural District Court, Bangalore-9 (ii) Presently working as Registrar General of Karnataka High Court,Karnataka High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.
-
H.D. Sandesh, S.L.F.No. 3217 [Page.282 ],District Judge, Mandya.
-
Usha Rani Nemiraj Shetty, S.L.F.No. 3221 [Page 282 ], Prl. CJ [Jr. Divn], JMFC, DODDABALLAPUR.
-
Patil Nagalinganagowda, S.L.F.No. 3262 [Page 284 ],(i) Civil Judge & JMFC, II Court, Davangere(ii) ACMM-VIII Court, Bangalore (iii) presently serving as ACMM-VIII, Magistrate Court Complex, Bangalore; [Who had “Prepared Charges; under pressure from High Court Judges etc., without even hearing].[Trial Court Judge in : Lokayukta Complaint Vs Digvijay Mote ] [ Puttaswamy is present Judge] .
-
Veeranna G. Tigadi, S.L.F.No. 3282, [Page.285 ],Registrar,[Vigilance], High court, Bangalore-1. [ GKVK Road ?]
-
H.P. Leeladhar [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 548 [Pg. No. 23].
-
Keshav Reddy [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 709 [Pg. No. 30].
-
K.M. Nataraj. [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 733 [Pg. No. 32].
-
Basavprabhu S. Patil,[Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 1187 [Pg. No. 53].
-
Dr. Sharan S. Patil [Employee Associate SLF Membership No. 1188 [Pg. No. 53].
-
BIAS, LIKELYHOOD of BIAS is DISCUSSED ; BUT NOT HORIZONTAL & PERPENDUCULAR CASE, LIKE THIS of MINE is FIRST of ITS KIND in INDIA, IF NOT THE WORLD DEMOCRACIES:- In Sippegoda Vs. Chief Justice refer link http://indiankanoon.org/doc/246551/ :-
1. The petitioner, a dismissed Court Officer of the High Court of Karnataka has challenged in this writ petition the order of dismissal on several grounds. He has arrayed as the first respondent-The High Court of Karnataka represented by its Registrar General, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka as the second respondent and the Registrar (Judicial) as the third respondent. The second respondent is arrayed as party respondent because he is the disciplinary authority who has passed the order of dismissal. The Office has raised an objection on scrutiny of the papers to the effect that the petitioner should state in the cause-title who is the authorized representative of the second respondent. The petitioner in reply to the said office objection has stated, that the disciplinary authority who has passed the impugned order has been rightly impleaded in the said capacity as the administrative/disciplinary actions of the Hon’ble Chief Justice have been questioned. The said authority has been impleaded eo nomine, a party to the petition. Therefore, the matter was placed before the Court for orders on this office objection.
2. From the office objections and the explanation offered by the petitioner as aforesaid, the question that arise for consideration is as under:
(a) When the Chief Justice of a High Court as a Disciplinary Authority passes an order imposing a penalty on an employee of the High Court, in a writ petition filed challenging the said order, whether he should be made eo nomine a party?
(b) If he is made eo nomine a party who should represent him before the Court?
3. On the aforesaid question, I have heard Sri. H. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Naganand, Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.
4. In order to resolve this Controversy it is necessary to look into the Constitutional Provisions which are relevant.
Article 229 deals with the power of the Chief Justice of the High Court in the matter of appointments and disciplinary proceedings of the officers and servants of the High Court which reads as under.
229. Officers and servants and the expenses of High Courts.
(1) Appointments of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may direct: Provided that the Governor of the State may by rule require that in such cases as may be specified in the rule no person not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to any office connected with the Court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commission.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose:
Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State.
(3) The administrative expenses of a High Court, including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the officers and servants of the Court, shall be charged upon the consolidated Fund of the State, and any fees or other money taken by the Court shall form part of that Fund.
5. However, Article 235 of the Constitution deals with the power of the High Court in the matter of control over the Subordinate Courts reads as under:
235. Control over Subordinate Courts – The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may have under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law.
6. The Constitution of the High Court is dealt with by Article 216 which reads as under:
216. Constitution of the High Courts – Every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint.
7. Article 229 of the Constitution confers exclusive power on the Chief Justice of the Court to make appointments of officers and servants of the High Court, subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State. The conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court provided the rules made under the said clause shall so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State. In so far as the Chief Justice of the High Court is concerned, he has a dual personality. One on the Judicial side and another on the administrative side. On the judicial side he would be a part of High Court as every High Court shall consists of Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint. On the administrative side he is the supreme authority in the matter of High Court establishment, and he is the sole authority.
8. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Gurumoorthy v. The Accountant General, Assam and Nagaland and Ors. , in dealing with the status of the Chief Justice
under the Constitution has held as under:
8. The unequivocal purpose and obvious intention of the framers of the Constitution in enacting Article 229 is that in the matter of appointments of officers and servants of a High Court it is the Chief Justice or his nominee who is to he the supreme authority and there can be no interference by the executive except to the limited extent that is provided in the Article. This is essentially to secure and maintain the independence of the High Courts. The anxiety of the Constitution-makers to achieve that object is fully shown by putting the administrative expenses of a High Court including all salaries, allowances and pension payable to or in respect of officers and servants of the Court at the same level as the salaries and allowances of the Judges of the High Court nor can the amount of any expenditure so charged by varied even by the legislature. Clause (1) read with Clause (2) of Article 229 confers exclusive power not only in the matter of appointments but also with regard to prescribing the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court by Rules on the Chief Justice of the Court. This is subject to any legislation by the State Legislature but only in respect of conditions of service. In the matter of appointments even the legislature cannot abridge or modify the powers conferred on the Chief Justice under Clause (1). The approval of the Governor, as noticed in the matter of Rules, is confined only to such rules as relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pension. All other rules in respect of conditions of service do not require his approval….
9. …Thus Article 229 has a distinct and different scheme and contemplates full freedom to the Chief Justice in the matter of appointments of officers and servants of the High Court and their conditions of service. These can be prescribed by rules made by him. apart from the special situation contemplated by the proviso to clause (1) the only exception is that the Governors approval must be sought to the extent the rides relate to salaries, leave or pension. This exception, it is abundantly clear, had to be made because the finances have to he provided by the Government and to the extent there is any involvement of expense the Government has to approve of it.
9. 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. , dealing with the power of the Chief Justice in the matter of appointment of personnel of the High Court under Article 229 of the Constitution, explaining the word “appointment” held as under:
27. Now, let us see what is the ambit and scope of the power of “appointment” in Article 229(1). In the context of Article 229, read as a whole this power is of wide amplitude. The word “appointment” in Article 229(1) is to be construed according to the axiom that the greater includes the less. This cardinal canon of interpretation underlies Section 16 of the General Clauses Act which has been made applicable by Article 317(1) of the Constitution. Construed in the light of this juristic principle, the power of “appointment” conferred by Article 229(1) includes the power to suspend, dismiss, remove or compulsorily retire from service. In short, in regard to the servants and officers of the High Court, Article 229 makes the power of appointment, dismissal, removal, suspension, reduction in rank, compulsory retirement, etc., including the power to prescribe their conditions of service, the sole preserve of the Chief Justice and no extraneous executive authority can interfere with the exercise of that power by the Chief Justice or his nominee, except to a very limited extent indicated in the provisos. In conferring such exclusive and supreme powers on the Chief Justice, the object which the Founding Fathers had in view, was to ensure independence of the High Court.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal and Anr. , held as under:
18. This Article makes Chief Justice of the High Court the supreme authority in the matter of appointments of the High Court officers and servants. This Article also confers rule-making power on the Chief Justice for regulating the condition of service of officers and servants of the High Court subject to the condition that if the rules relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, they have to have the approval of the Governor of the State. If the Legislature of the State has made any law, the rules made by the Chief Justice would operate subject to the conditions made in that law.
23. Just as the Chief Justice of India is the supreme authority in the matter of Supreme Court Establishment including its office staff and officers, so also the Chief Justice of the High Court is the sole authority in these matters and no other Judge or officer can legally usurp those administrative functions or power.
32. …A Judge of the High Court individually or all the Judges sitting collectively, as in the Full Court, cannot either alter the constitutional provisions or the rules made by the Chief Justice. They have no jurisdiction even to suggest any Constitutional amendment or amendment in the rules made by the Chief Justice nor can they create any avenue of promotion for the High Court Staff so as to be appointed on posts meant for officers in the Higher Judicial Service or the Judicial Service. The Chief Justice has been vested with wide powers to run the High Court administration independently so as not to brook any interference from any quarter, not even from his brother Judges who, however, can scrutinize his administrative action or order on the Judicial side like the action of any other authority….
36. Article 235 shows that the High Court has to exercise its administrative, judicial and disciplinary control over the members of the Judicial Service of the State. The word “control”, referred to in this article, is used in a comprehensive sense to include general superintendence of the working of the subordinate courts, disciplinary control over the Presiding Officers of the subordinate courts and to recommend the imposition of punishment of dismissal, removal and reduction in rank or compulsory retirement. “Control” would also include suspension of a member of the Judicial Service for purposes of holding a disciplinary enquiry, transfer, confirmation and promotion.
37. The word “Control” under Article 235 meant exclusive and not dual control. It vests in the High Court and not in any Judge or Judges or any committee thereof. However, there is no bar to have an enquiry made by a Committee of several Judges against a member of the subordinate judiciary provided and report of the Committee is circulated to all the Judges and the ultimate decision is taken in the meeting of the Full Court.
38. What is, therefore, of significance is that although in Article 235, the word “High Court” has been used, in Article 229, the word ”Chief Justice” has been used. The Constitution, therefore, treats them as two separate entities in as much as “control ever Subordinate Courts ” vests in the High Court, but High Court administration vests in the Chief Justice.”
40. As pointed out above, under the constitutional scheme, Chief Justice is the supreme authority and the other Judges, so far as officers and servants of the High Court are concerned, have no role to play on the administrative side, some judges, undoubtedly will become Chief Justice in their own turn one day, but it is imperative under constitutional discipline that they work in tranquility. Judges have been described as “hermits.” They have to live and behave like “hermits” who have no desire or aspiration, having shed it through penance. Their mission is to supply light and not heat. This is necessary so that their latent desire to run the High Court administration may not sprout before time, at least, in some cases.
11. In the case of P.L. Lakhanpal v. Ajithnath Ray, Chief Justice of India, New ‘Delhi and Ors. , a full Bench of the Delhi High Court held that, the office of the Chief Justice is distinctly different office from that of a Judge and normally The Chief Justice of the High Court is called the Chief Justice of that Court and not a judge of that Court. It does not mean that the Chief Justice of a High Court ceases to be a Judge of that Court. All that is meant is that the office of the Chief Justice of a High Court is a office different from the office of a Judge of the High Court and the former is normally called the Chief Justice of that Court and not a Judge of that Court. It does not mean that the Chief Justice of a High Court is not and cannot be properly called a Judge of that Court. The difference in the office of a Judge of a High Court and that of the Chief Justice of that Court lies only in the duties and functions to be performed by each of them. The Chief Justice of a High Court has duties which, are additional to his duties as a. Judge of that Court. But that does not mean that the Chief Justice of a High Court ceases to be or is not a Judge of that Court. For the judicial work, the Chief Justice is the Judge of the Court.
12. Therefore, the position of the Chief Justice under the Constitution is very clear and well settled. Article 229 makes the Chief Justice of the High Court the supreme authority in the matter of appointments of the High Court officers and servants, which includes the power to suspend; dismiss, remove or compulsorily retire from service. The said power is the sole preserve of the Chief Justice and no extraneous executive authority can interfere with the exercise of that power by the Chief Justice or his nominee except to a very limited extent indicated in the provisos. In conferring such exclusive and supreme powers on the Chief Justice, the object which the Founding Fathers had in view, was to ensure independence of the High Court Under the Constitutional scheme, the Chief Justice is the supreme authority and the other Judges so far as officers and servants of the High Court are concerned, have no role to play on the administrative side. All though in Article 235 the word “High Court” has been used, the Constitution treats them as two separate entities in as ranch as control over subordinate Courts vests in the High Court but High Court administration vests in the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice has been vested with vide powers to run the High Court administration independenty so as not to brook any interference from any quarter, not even from his brother Judges who, however, can scrutinize his administrative action or order on the judicial side like the action of any other authority. The office of the Chief Justice is distinctly different office from mat of a Judge of the High Court. Normally the Chief Justice of the High Court is called the Chief Justice of that Court and not a judge of that Court. The office of the Chief Justice of a High Court is an office different from the office of a Judge of the High Court. The difference in the office of a Judge of a High Court and that of the Chief Justice of that Court lies only in the duties and functions to be performed by each of them. The Chief Justice of a High Court has duties which are additional to his duties as a Judge of that Court. But that does not mean that the Chief Justice of a High Court ceases to be or is not a Judge of that Court. For the Judicial work, the Chief Justice is the Judge of the Court.
13. Article 212 of the Constitution grants immunity to the proceedings of Parliament and the Legislature of the State. Neither the validity of any proceedings in the Parliament and Legislature of a State nor the conduct of business or for maintaining order, by any officer or member of Parliament or Legislature of State shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any Court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers. Similarly, Article 361 of the Constitution grants complete immunity from Court proceedings to the President, or the Governor of a State. They Shall not be answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of their office or for any act done or purporting to be done by them in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties. The proviso to the said Article makes it clear that nothing in the said clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Government of India or the Government of a State.
14. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. v. Union Of India and Anr. 2006 AIR SCW 494, dealing with the constitutional immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution held that, aplain reading of the aforesaid Article shows that there is a complete bar to the impleading and issue of notice to the President or the Governor inasmuch as they are not answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of their powers and duties. The reason being that most of the actions are taken on aid and advice of Council of Ministers. However, it was made clear that the personal immunity from answerability provided in Article 361 does not bar the challenge that may be made to their actions: It was held that, under law, such actions including those actions where the challenge may be based on the allegations of mala fides are required to be defended by Union of India or the State, as the case may be. It was further clarified that, even in cases where the personal mala fides are alleged and established, it would not be open to the Governments to urge that the same cannot be satisfactorily answered because of the immunity granted. In such an eventuality it was held it is for the respondent defending the action to satisfy the Court either on the basis of the material on record or even filing the affidavit of the person against whom such allegation of personal mala fides are made. Article 361 does not bar filing of an affidavit if one wants to file on his own. The bar is only against the power of the Court to issue notice or making the President or the Governor answerable. In view of the bar, the Court cannot issue direction to President or Governor for even filing of affidavit to assist the Court. Filing of an affidavit on one’s own volition is one thing than issue of direction by the Court to file an affidavit. The personal immunity under Article 361(1) is complete and, therefore, there is no question of the President or the Governor being made answerable to the Court in respect of even charges of male fides.
15. A similar identical provision conferring protection to the Chief Justice of High Court is conspicuously missing in the Constitution. Therefore, it is clear that the framers of the Constitution did not intend extending this complete immunity to the Chief Justice. In the absence of such express immunity being extended to the office of the Chief Justice it is not possible to infer any such immunity to the Chief Justice by implication. As stated earlier the Chief Justice has a dual capacity. As a Judge of the High Court on the judicial side when he passes an order the said order is challenged in the higher forums and in such proceedings the Chief Justice is not made a party as it is settled law that there is no necessity for impleading the Judicial Officer who disposes of the matter on the judicial side Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 932/1999 disposed of or. 18.2.1999. However, on the administrative side as a disciplinary authority when he passes an order imposing a penalty on a servant of a High Court, it is an order which is amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The question whether he should be impleaded as a party in such proceedings is to be decided, in the absence of any immunity under the Constitution, solely on the ground whether is he a necessary party as contemplated under Order X Rule 2 CPC. The only criterion would be that the necessary parties to be impleaded are those against whom the relief is sought and in whose absence no effective decision could be rendered by a Court. When an order of the disciplinary authority is challenged and the relief is sought for setting aside the said order and direction to the disciplinary authority to reinstate,the employee in service, in order to effectually decide the validity of the order of dismissal and grant the relief of reinstatement the person who has passed the impugned order and the person who has to reinstate such an employee is a necessary party and his presence is very much required. As the order dismissing a servant from service is an administrative order, which is subject to judicial review, before any order is passed in setting aside such order, the person who has passed the said order ought to be heard and, therefore, necessarily he has to be made a party to such proceedings. Therefore, the Chief Justice of the High Court is a necessary party in a proceedings initiated,challenging the order passed by the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution.
16. The next question for consideration is even if the Chief justice is made a party in such proceedings, who should represent the Chief Justice in such proceeding. Whether the Chief Justice himself should appear and contest the matter or he could be represented by an officer of the High Court. In the judgment by the Constitution Bench in the case of Rameshwara Prasad it was held, in a proceedings challenging the action of the President or Governor, such actions are to be defended by Union of India or the State as the case may be. Even in cases where personal mala fides are alleged and established they should defend the action to satisfy the Court either on the basis of the material on record or even filing the affidavit of the person against whom such allegations of mala fides are made.
17. Therefore, when Chief Justice is impleaded as a party, in such proceedings, having regard to the high office he holds under the scheme of the Constitution, though there is no immunity granted, he need not appear in those proceedings personally. He can defend his action through the Registrar of the High Court who in fact gives effect to his orders. In a case where mala fides are alleged against the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice if the chooses, can file an affidavit traversing those allegations. Therefore, whenever Chief Justice is made a party to the legal proceedings, he should be represented by the Registrar of the High Court.
Petitioner shall amend the cause title accordingly.
-
Like Newton’s Third Law “THERE IS EQUAL & OPPOSITE FORCE to BALANCE THE UNIVERSAL NATURE” accordingly the Applicant feels feels proud of The WHISTLEBLOWERS within Indian Judiciary; Braving all ODDS Take on Corruption within Judiciary & Lokayukta within law recourse by approaching with clean hands in WP. PIL. 40994/2002; as opposed to G.P. Shivapraksh in WP. PIL 7105/2007. The WHISTLEBLOWERS were employees under Karnataka High Court; worthy of honoring them by not only High Court but also by Karnataka Government.
The NAMES of WHISTLEBLOWERS
1. B V BYRA REDDY, PRESIDENT, NO.1362, III CROSS,JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY.
2. . M CHIKKALINGAIAH, SECRETARY, NO.1816, 8TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT,BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY.
3. . G K NAGARAJA, TREASURER,NO.1730, 6TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY.
4. S D VENKATARAMANAIAH, FOUNDER PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR, NO.1803, 8TH MAIN ROAD, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY.
5. D N KAGWAD, DIRECTOR, NO.1185, 10TH CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 65.BANGALORE CITY.6. RUPA KUMARI, DIRECTOR, NO.126, 21ST MAIN,JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 65.BANGALORE CITY.
7. Y C BUJABHALAIAH, JT.SECRETARY & DIRECTOR,NO.990, 14TH CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 65.BANGALORE CITY
8. A LAXMANA RAO, DIRECTOR, NO.522, SEVEN HILLS, 23RD CROSS, 18TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY
9. S RAJA RAO, DIRECTOR, NO.516, 18TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CIT
10. MANJUNATHA HOLLA, DIRECTOR,13TH MAIN,JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY.
11. SARASWATI, DIRECTOR, 11TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS,JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 65. BANGALORE CITY.42. The applicant knows Mr. Syed Riaz, the Complainant in CC 6711/2012, who is in circles of Bureacrats & Politicians is called as WHEELER DEALER, since 2004. He is the who facilitated applicant’s interview with, Lokayukta Sanosh Hegde. Riaz has received many C.Ds and well aware that applicant is editor of http://www.judgesplot4plot.com/ , http://indiancorruptjudges.com/ .But in the complaint he has shown as though I am a stranger, for he was scared that I may spill one two beans of Karnataka Lokayukta & his La-de-affairs:-
[1] . The complaint is on the basis of Mr. Riaz, presently P.R.O. and Dy. Commissioner, Office of Lokayukta ,Bangalore was selected by Government of India to represent India in the World Bank sponsored ‘International Corruption Hunters Alliance Event’ in year 2010. In the Video Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZZCYpoK2_c&feature=relmfu uploaded by WorldBank on Dec 8, 2010 he is seen twice, while hearing the speech and later shaking hands with the President of World Bank at the said Conference. Of which theme is “Corruption steals from the poor and those responsible must be held accountable” was what Mr. Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank said at the launch of the International Corruption Hunters Alliance in Washington DC. Today, more than 250 anti-corruption officials from 134 countries are working on a global enforcement regime sharing information, monitoring results and coordinating action in corruption cases” .
[2] Lokayukta Dead Body Scam of Venkatachala & Company:- “Out of respect for the Lokayukta, we handed over the bodies to Lakshmi. Now, the case has taken a different turn with the duo being arrested for cheating the LIC. Had the Lokayukta listened to us, we could have proven our suspicions about Lakshmi. We don’t hold any personal grudge against Justice Venkatachala, but we will have to consider taking legal action against him,” a senior police officer said.“We have asked the chief of prosecution for a legal opinion on whether to prosecute the former Lokayukta based on the investigating officer’s statement, after which we will file an FIR,” ACP K N Nyame Gowda, who is handling the case, told Bangalore Mirror.
………………..
Former IO in insurance fraud case says he was pressured. Police want to book ex-Lokayukta for his 2005 ‘do-gooder’ act.
According to the cops, Justice Venkatachala overruled their objections and directed them to hand over two unclaimed bodies to a duo who are accused of cheating LIC to the tune of `12 lakh. An opinion on his prosecution from the state legal cell is awaited
Posted On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 at 06:43:08 AM
Courtesy:- http://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.aspx?page=article§id=1&contentid=20130206201302060643225945538e713The Video on the SCAM recorded in 2005 or so is HEART BURNIG as to the working, Integrity of Lokayuktas; benefitting from DEAD BODIES posted in youtube.com @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C53CMk8fCBY
A former Karnataka Lokayukta, Justice N Venkatachala, faces the possibility of prosecution in a case where he allegedly pressured the jurisdictional police to hand over the bodies of two road accident victims to a woman who is accused, along with her paramour, of fraudulently making insurance claims totalling 12 lakh from the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC). LIC taken for Rs 12L ‘compensation’ ride by fraudster couple.
The then investigating officer in the case has said in his statement to the new IO that despite police reservations, the bodies were handed over due to pressure from the former Lokayukta.
The accused, S Lakshmi (34) and advocate Ramakrishna Reddy (56), bought three LIC policies in Bangalore, Adoni and Kalyanadurga in 2004 in the name of Lakshmi’s husband, Nagesh Naik. A year later, on March 25, 2005, they read a news item about the deaths of two unidentified persons in a road accident in the Chikkajala police limits. The same day, they landed up at the Chikkajala police station and claimed that Nagesh and his brother, Venkatesh Naik, were the two unidentified persons.
Asked to provide photo IDs of the deceased, they submitted the three LIC policies. Police inspector K Chandrashekar and sub-inspector Gautam did not accept the policies as evidence, at which point Reddy contacted the then Bangalore Advocates Association president, K N Subba Reddy. Subba Reddy allegedly put pressure on the police to hand over the bodies to Lakshmi, but the cops refused to budge. When Lakshmi
‘complained’ to the then Lokayukta, Justice N Venkatachala went with her to Bowring Hospital, where the bodies were kept, on March 29, 2005. He reportedly called the officers concerned and, overruling their objections, directed them to hand over the bodies to her.
“Out of respect for the Lokayukta, we handed over the bodies to Lakshmi. Now, the case has taken a different turn with the duo being arrested for cheating the LIC. Had the Lokayukta listened to us, we could have proven our suspicions about Lakshmi. We don’t hold any personal grudge against Justice Venkatachala, but we will have to consider taking legal action against him,” a senior police officer said.
“We have asked the chief of prosecution for a legal opinion on whether to prosecute the formerLokayukta based on the investigating officer’s statement, after which we will file an FIR,” ACP K N Nyame Gowda, who is handling the case, told Bangalore Mirror.
After getting the bodies, the duo used the death certificate in Nagesh Naik’s name to file a compensation claim with the Bangalore LIC branch and were given a cheque for Rs 5.99 lakh on August 8, 2007. In the same manner, Lakshmi got a cheque for Rs 5.99 lakh from the Adoni branch on September 11, 2007. But her bluff was called when she applied for compensation to the Kalyanadurga branch on October 11, 2007. The officials there visited Nagesh Naik’s village and were surprised to discover that he was alive! They informed the Bangalore and Adoni branches of the fraud, and the Bangalore branch lodged a complaint with the police on October 28, 2011.
After a detailed investigation, the police arrested Reddy and Lakshmi on December 7 last year. The investigations revealed that she had passed off an unidentified person’s photograph as her husband’s while enrolling for the ‘Bhima’ policy, and had also produced that person at the time of enrolment.
‘I DID NOTHING WRONG’
Speaking to BM, Justice Venkatachala said, “I haven’t done anything wrong. The Lokayukta post is a judicial one, and that was a judicial order. In that
case, according to the complainant the police were harassing her for money. The bodies were unidentified for a long time. I acted according to the law. I agree there might have been some mistake, but that does not mean they can say we are going to prosecute you. The Lokayukta is not liable for prosecution. I am really surprised by this act of the police. I helped lakhs of people when I was theLokayukta, and this is the return I am getting.”
43.A. The letter of Hon’ble Chairman of Joint Legislative Committe, [Investigation Committee of Identifying Government Land Grabbing in Bangalore
Urban & Bangalore Rural Districts] :-
Joint Legislative Committe,
[Investigation Committee of Identifying Government Land Grabbing in Bangalore
Urban & Bangalore Rural Districts]
Date: 29.05.2007
To:
Shri G.T. Devegowda,
Minister for Co-operation,Govt. of Karnataka, Vidhana soudha, Bangalore 560 001
Dear Hon’ble Minister,
Karnataka state Judicial department Employees’ House Building Co-operative Housing Society having formed Layout, has Distributed Sites. Said Layout is formed without getting Layout Plan Approved from B.D.A, has formed an Illegal layout. The Said Society, in forming Illegal layout, has violated Section 79[A] 79[B] of Land reforms Act & Completely violated Land Revenue Act. Places/ Sites Reserved for Civic Amenity Sites / Public Places, is sold away. Society in forming Illegal layout, has violated every Directions issued time-to-time from various Govt. Departments & Courts; has acted as per its own Fancies & wishes, by throwing All orders into Winds. In the Court also, Court has Rejected “Society’s Un-Conditional Apology for the Contempt of Court” stating that Apology is not worth of trusting. Further the President of Society has filed a Criminal case against the Secretary of the very Society for having Forged Records & having Registered Sites illegally, exhibits the Serious kinds of Illegal Activities, society has indulged into.
The Society instead of working as per Law, is working as “Real Estate Agent”. It is Clear that the concerned Governmental Departments including Co-operative department, have failed completely in their duties to see that Society works as per law; but on contrary it looks like the departments have fallen prey to the influence of Society & have utterly failed in their respective duties for having failed to initiate timely action against Illegal activities of this Society. The Investigations reveal that this Society’s Illegal activities have Topped list of Cheating & Frauds in this State, by the way Society has violated Gravest-of Grave Laws. I feel pity to Express, JUDICIAL LAY-OUT, has become MOTHER of ALL ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. Committee has received Complaints that stating that other Societies have also indulged in Similar illegal Activities.
Therefore to take stringent Action against illegal activities of Karnataka state Judicial department Employees’ House Building Co-operative Housing Society, it is Recommended to supersede the Society forthwith & to initiate Criminal prosecution against persons who are responsible for for such nefarious Activities.
With regards, Yours faithfully,
….Signed….
[A.T. Ramaswamy]
CHAIRMAN
43.B. Who will Guard the Guardians?
Karnataka Legislature Joint House Committee on Encroachments in Bangalore Urban District.Report No. Two, as presented to Karnataka Assembly.
Applicant believes that It directed Karnataka Government “to Forfeit “LANDS & BUNGALOWS contained in JUDICIAL LAYOUT , Jakkur, Yelahanka, Bangalore” andto initiate Crminal action against persons responsible for abetting crimes:-3. The Strange Case of Karnataka Judicial Employees House Building Cooperative Society :-
Who will Guard the Guardians?
The Karnataka Judicial Employees House Building Cooperative Society (KJEHBCS) was established in 1983 with the objective of providing housing to the employees of Judicial Department. Government acquired 156A 26G of land in the village limits of Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Chikka Plantations in Bangalore North Taluk in the year 1992 and handed over possession on 13-11-1992. Besides, the HBCS took possession of about 36 acres of land in the same villages through private negotiations with the land holders entering into Agreements to Sell. At the outset it should be mentioned that such negotiations of taking possession of private agricultural land for house building purpose without prior permission of the Government is a violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Section 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act which section came into force on 1-3-1974 states as follows:
“79-B. Prohibition of holding agricultural land by certain persons.—(1) With
effect on and from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, except as
otherwise provided in this Act — . \
(a) no person other than a person cultivating land personally shall be entitled
to hold land; and
(b) it shall not be lawful for, (i)…., (ii)…., (Hi)…………….. ,
(iv) a cooperative society other than a cooperative farm, to hold any land.”
Further, under section 80 (1) (a) (iv), no sale in favour of a cooperative society disentitled u/s 79 B will be lawful. Also, u/s 83 all such land unlawfully held by a HBCS shall be forfeited after a summary enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner.
It is therefore clear that the Judicial Employees HBCS has violated the Land Reforms Act and the land so held by the HBCS shall be forfeited to the Government along with the structures on it. The HBCS gave an ingenious explanation to the Committee on 30 May 2007 that the lands through private negotiations were actually not purchased through Sale Deeds but only Agreements to Sale were effected and the HBCS has taken possession of the lands on that basis. This only compounds the offence of the HBCS as it has taken possession of the lands without any title and proceeded to allot sites in gross violation of law. In some cases, the HBCS and a few land-holders have entered into a “compromise” before the City Civil Judge. It is astounding as to how such “compromise” in violation of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act and that too before a Court of Law can be entered.
The HBCS submitted a layout plan to the Bangalore Development Authority 6-11-1992 for approval. The BDA vide its letter dated 28-11-1992 resolved to approve the layout subject to certain conditions. However, the HBC§ never again went before the BDA. Meanwhile many such HBCSs approached the Courts against one of the conditions namely, payment of Rs.2 lakhs per acre towards the Cauvery Water Supply Scheme. The Court held this condition against many HBCS including the Judicial Employees HBCS as invalid. The Judicial Employees HBCS then submitted its layout to the City Municipal Council, Yelahanka which is not the Planning Authority for the lands of the HBCS as the BDA is the concerned authority under the Town and Country Planning Act. The CMC gave approval primarily for collection of fees at Rs.9 per square foot. This was assumed to be “approval” of the layout for which the CMC had no jurisdiction.
The Judicial Employees HBCS enrolled 3399 members and 1353 Associate Members and allotted 2268 sites. This included a large number of sites allotted to many Associate Members including Judges of High Court / Supreme Court their family members, Politicians, Contractors, Officials like Police-Sub Inspectors who cannot be even ‘honorary’ Judicial Officers while many regular primary members were not allotted sites. The allottees included such persons as Police Sub Inspector, Contractor of Public Works Department, children of Judges etc. who were not Judicial Employees or primary members.
Admittedly, the HBCS in its original layout plan had allocated about 65% for sites, 5% for Civic Amenities and Parks and the balance for roads. According to the Town Planning norms, 52% can be allotted as sites, 25% to be reserved for CA sites and parks and the balance of 23% for roads. According to this requirement, the HBCS should have provided for 404 CA sites against which no site was relinquished to the Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] .
In October 2002 the Judicial Employees Welfare Association petitioned to the-High Court about various violations committed by the HBCS and the HC by an interim-order directed that no sites reserved for civic amenities “and parks and public use should be distributed as sites by the HBCS. However, the HBCS violated this direction also and distributed sites reserved for public use. Against this a contempt petition was filed by the Welfare Association which is being heard by the High Court of Karnataka and the Supreme Court appears to have issued a stay against the same.
In March 2006, the Secretary cum Manager of the HBCS allotted 27 sites to his son-in-law by forging the documents of the HBCS against which the HBCS has filed a criminal case which is pending. In December 2006 the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has initiated an enquiry regarding the irregularities committed and for disqualification of the office-bearers of the HBCS. The numerous violations committed by this HBCS are briefly as follows:
(1) According to sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, no HBCS can hold agricultural land without the prior permission of the Government. But the HBCS took possession of about 36 acres of land from land holders on the basis of Agreement to Sell and distributed the land as sites. In Mangalagowri Vs. Keshamurthy [2001 (4) KLJ 520] the High Court of Karnataka held that such distribution of sites after taking possession of agricultural land in violation of section 79-B the Land Reforms Act without prior approval of Government deserves criminal prosecution and directed the Police Department to launch criminal prosecution. Besides, such land possessed and distributed by the HBCS is liable for forfeiture by the Government.
(2) Civic Amenities sites to the extent of 25% of the total layout, area must be relinquished to the BDA for leasing them for civic amenities. As per order of the High Court in Bangalore Medical Trust vs. BDA (AIR 1991 SC 1902) dated 19-7-1991 sites meant for civic amenities cannot be used for any other purpose.
Also, sites whether relinquished to the BDA or not, vest in the BDA. Besides, as per decision of the HC in A.S. Vishveshwariah vs. BDA 2004(3)KLJ p.2613,under section 33 of the Town and Country Planning Act, if the layout is not approved by the BDA and the HBCS goes ahead and distributes sites and buildings are built, the BDA can take possession of the buildings and use them for its own purpose, lease them out or sell to the public.
(3) The HBCS has allotted sites to persons who are not eligible for allotment of sites as judicial employees such as Police Sub inspector, PWD Contractor, Politicians, etc. Most noteworthy of such ineligible persons are the High Court Judges many of whom have been allotted sites as per list appended (Annex 3). As per observations of the High Court in ILR 1995(1) Kar 3139, High Court Judges cannot be members of the HBCS. The observation of Justices K.S.Bhaktavatsalam and M.F.Saldanha in this case aree as follows:
p.3183 “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 Cooperative Society…”
It is most unfortunate that the Judicial Employees HBCS which been a model to the other House Building Cooperative Societies has itself become the leading law-breaker without the least fear or care for law; propriety or public interest. It has indulged in acts of favor, cronyism and capricious indifference to law at will, obviously under the hubris that having High Court judges and powerful persons as its and beneficiaries will ensure immunity to all its illegal acts.
What is more disquieting is the readiness with which sitting High Court judges who are not “employees” under any government but are constitutional functionaries protected rightly by many a privilege under the law, should have eagerly become members of the HBCS and obtained sites. It is seen that some of them obtained sites not only for themselves but also for their kith and kin who are not judicial employees either. The Board of Directors who appeared before the officers of the Committee on 30-5-2007 also informed that while there was one set of application form for the members, there was another set for the Judges of High Court and Supreme Court !
Having the registered office of the HBCS in the High Court Building itself invoking awe and terror in the minds of various agencies who have to take action against the HBCS as per law do not create an atmosphere of fairplay, straightforwardness or impartial dispensation of justice.
In the retreating standards of public morality, the people still perceive the Judiciary as the last bastion of redress, relief, remedy and justice. Therefore, the Judiciary should be, like Sita or Caesar’s wife, above and far removed from the least odor of suspicion of indiscretion and impropriety. This Committee therefore feels that it is necessary to protect the Judiciary’s own precious reputation and the faith of people in it.
44. In the year 2004 Lokayukta Registrar lodged a complaint against Accused, his wife and Minor son on 8/7/2004 in Vidhana Soudha Police Station registered as Crime No. 48/2004 under Sec. 341 and 353, read with 34 IPC. The case was charge sheeted before this same VIII ACMM Court vide CC No. 8838/2005.
[2] The Ld. Judge passed a Judgment on 21-06-2006 finding the Charges groundless and acquitted the accused. Presently Applicant has filed Application for Certified Copies of Judgment and other Documents in Copying Branch of this Hon’ble Court on 4th June,2012 vide C.R. No.17927/2012, of which copies are still not made available by the Copying Branch. The said Documents have Judicial Importance in trying this Applicant by High Court; as the Complaint, F.I.R, Evidences shall culminate in proving that Complaints by Karnataka Lokayukta then in 2004 & now in 2011 have played Fraud on this Court & thereby upon People of Karnataka, to whom the Institution belongs.
[3] The said details sought for also shall guide the chronology of events Vis-a-vis cases in High Court by PILs against said Society.
[4] The said details sought for also prove to the High Court that this court has rightly transferred the case without loss of time; as in the guise of Public Interest Litigations more than ten years Reddy & Billappa are trying to give a slent BURIAL to JUDGES’ SCAM.
[5] The said details sought for, shall also convince the High Court that Applicant & his family were slapped with false cases, intentionally to POSTPONE arrest of 867 Corrupt Judges standing Criminal Trial.
[6] The said details sought for, shall also convince the High Court that Applicant & his family have without any personal interest, but to see that Farmers whose lands are grabbed without compensation are returned with lands, which is possible only under Writ Jurisdiction.
[7] The said details sought for, shall also convince the High Court that Complaint, F.I.R and Charge Sheet are forced upon the Accused with vengeance, Corrupt motives, Ill-Intentions and pre planned criminal designs.
[8] The said details sought for, shall also convince the High Court and prove that D.Krishnappa , Lokayukta Registra played fraud as a Public Servant & Judge Miss-guided this Court by his Omissions & Commissions in instituting Police complaint.45. In post Independent India never any Chief Justice of India had made a speech like Mr. Justice Kapadia, the Hon’ble Former Chief Justice of India who, on 26th November 2011, during his LAW DAY speech said : “If any Judge is believed to be Corrupt; that Judge should be named in Public and brought to the Notice of Chief Justice of High Court”.
It is for the First Time in the history of indian judiciary a sitting Chief Justice Of India asking his countrymen to raise voice against corruption in Judiciary. The said speech has appeared in News Papers and T.V. Channels and is available on Supreme Court website at http://sci.nic.in/speeches/lawdayspeech.pdf.
The said speech was addressed to All the Indian Citizens, General Public, Courts, Lokayukta, Jailers, Police, Government, all and sundry for whom The Indian Courts, Justice and Democracy matters.
46. Applicant Accused, owner of said websites, in close Co-operation in Private Sector with nationalistic organizations like www.judicialreforms.org , http://pucl.org/ , http://lokpal-hindi.blogspot.in/ , http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org/index1.html , http://www.aidprojects.org , Samaj Parivartana Samudaya , http://www.transparency.org/ and such other agencies like N.G.O.s, Media, Advocates and public spirited men with patriotism is addressing the burning issues ofc in India in high Places of Governance so as to reduce, if not to eliminate CORRUPTION and see that India stands with her head held high . We also keep informing the latest information to Governmental Agencies since 2003 like cbi.nic.in , cvc.nic.in ,, of late with ksp.gov.nic.in , other State & Central Law Enforcing Authorities
47. In 1928 Olmstead v. United States the Court observed thus:- Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.
Applicant humbly submits it is right & ripe time to Redefine for the Hon’ble High Court & Supreme Court to lay down as to what should be duty of Indian Citizens in the situations like the present case of Judicial HBCS case it goes further.
That is The Judges Manning Courts, who are believed to be virtued with all Godly qualities viz., Omnipotent, Omnipresent & Omniscient; violates Laws & Judgments.
Applicant is of considered opinion that in this case Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court of India has to declare new set of laws , so as to estop from such cases re-appearing anywhere in India.48. . ” Oath of a Judge _ analysed ” :- need for an independent and impartial judiciary manned by persons of sterling quality and character, undaunting courage and determination and resolute impartiality and independence who would dispense justice without fear or favour, ill-will or affection. Justice without fear or favour, ill-will or affection, is the cardinal creed of our Constitution and a solemn assurance of every Judge to the people of this great country
Oath of a Judge; Analysed By Justice R.C. Lahoti, the then Chief Justice Of India:-
Every word and expression employed in the oath of a judge is potent with a message. The message has to be demystified by reading between the lines and looking beyond what meets the eyes.
An option to swear in the name of God or to make a solemn affirmation is suggestive of secular character of the oath.
A judge must bear not only faith but ‘true faith’ and ‘allegiance’ to the Constitution of India. The oath demands of a judge not only belief in constitutional principles but a loyalty and a devotion akin to complete surrender to the constitutional beliefs. Why ?
“Under our constitutional scheme, the judiciary has been assigned the onerous task of safeguarding the fundamental rights of our citizens and of upholding the rule of law. Since the Courts are entrusted the duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws, it very often comes in conflict with the State when it tries to enforce its orders by exacting obedience from recalcitrant or indifferent State agencies. Therefore, the need for an independent and impartial judiciary manned by persons of sterling quality and character, undaunting courage and determination and resolute impartiality and independence who would dispense justice without fear or favour, ill-will or affection. Justice without fear or favour, ill-will or affection, is the cardinal creed of our Constitution and a solemn assurance of every Judge to the people of this great country ……. an independent and impartial judiciary is the most essential characteristic of a free society.[17]“ The arch of the Constitution of India pregnant from its Preamble, Chapter III (Fundamental Rights) and Chapter IV (Directive Principles) is to establish an egalitarian social order guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and to secure justice __ social, economic and political __ to every citizen through rule of law. Existing social inequalities need to be removed and equality in fact is accorded to all people irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion or region subject to protective discrimination only through rule of law. The Judge cannot retain his earlier passive judicial role when he administers the law under the Constitution to give effect to the constitutional ideals. The extraordinary complexity of modern litigation requires him not merely to declare the rights to citizens but also to mould the relief warranted under given facts and circumstances and often command the executive and other agencies to enforce and give effect to the order, writ or direction or prohibit them to do unconstitutional acts. In this ongoing complex of adjudicatory process, the role of the Judge is not merely to interpret the law but also to lay new norms of law and to mould the law to suit the changing social and economic scenario to make the ideals enshrined in the Constitution meaningful and a reality.[18]
The sovereignty and integrity of India has to be upheld. Constitution itself would cease to exist, if, God forbid, the sovereignty and integrity of India were lost.
The duties associated with the Office of a judge are too sacrosanct and hence demand the judicial functioning with ‘the best of ability, knowledge and judgment’ of the judges. It is not enough to be a law graduate or to have put in a number of years of practice or to have gained experience by serving as a judicial officer for a specified number of years. Their ability and knowledge associated with the clarity of purpose and methods which the judges display enables the judicial system to perform to its optimum efficiency. The role of the judge obligates him to continue to invest in up-dating his knowledge of law and skills of justice dispensation. The holder of the Office if not able and knowledgeable would not have the confidence to function, much less with independence. It is said : Strange, how much you’ve got to know; Before you know, how little you know.[19]
XXXXXXXXXXXX
[16] S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp. SCC 87, para 27. [17] S.C. Advocates-on-Record Association & Ors. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441, para 273, per Ahmadi, J.. [18] C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 457, para 41, per K. Ramaswamy, J. [19] Anonymous [20] University of New Brunswick Law Journal, Vol. 45, 1999, p.81.
Oath of a Judge; Analysed By Justice R.C. Lahoti, the then Chief Justice Of India:-
Every word and expression employed in the oath of a judge is potent with a message. The message has to be demystified by reading between the lines and looking beyond what meets the eyes.
An option to swear in the name of God or to make a solemn affirmation is suggestive of secular character of the oath.
A judge must bear not only faith but ‘true faith’ and ‘allegiance’ to the Constitution of India. The oath demands of a judge not only belief in constitutional principles but a loyalty and a devotion akin to complete surrender to the constitutional beliefs. Why ?
“Under our constitutional scheme, the judiciary has been assigned the onerous task of safeguarding the fundamental rights of our citizens and of upholding the rule of law. Since the Courts are entrusted the duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws, it very often comes in conflict with the State when it tries to enforce its orders by exacting obedience from recalcitrant or indifferent State agencies. Therefore, the need for an independent and impartial judiciary manned by persons of sterling quality and character, undaunting courage and determination and resolute impartiality and independence who would dispense justice without fear or favour, ill-will or affection. Justice without fear or favour, ill-will or affection, is the cardinal creed of our Constitution and a solemn assurance of every Judge to the people of this great country ……. an independent and impartial judiciary is the most essential characteristic of a free society.[17]“ The arch of the Constitution of India pregnant from its Preamble, Chapter III (Fundamental Rights) and Chapter IV (Directive Principles) is to establish an egalitarian social order guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and to secure justice __ social, economic and political __ to every citizen through rule of law. Existing social inequalities need to be removed and equality in fact is accorded to all people irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion or region subject to protective discrimination only through rule of law. The Judge cannot retain his earlier passive judicial role when he administers the law under the Constitution to give effect to the constitutional ideals. The extraordinary complexity of modern litigation requires him not merely to declare the rights to citizens but also to mould the relief warranted under given facts and circumstances and often command the executive and other agencies to enforce and give effect to the order, writ or direction or prohibit them to do unconstitutional acts. In this ongoing complex of adjudicatory process, the role of the Judge is not merely to interpret the law but also to lay new norms of law and to mould the law to suit the changing social and economic scenario to make the ideals enshrined in the Constitution meaningful and a reality.[18]
The sovereignty and integrity of India has to be upheld. Constitution itself would cease to exist, if, God forbid, the sovereignty and integrity of India were lost.
The duties associated with the Office of a judge are too sacrosanct and hence demand the judicial functioning with ‘the best of ability, knowledge and judgment’ of the judges. It is not enough to be a law graduate or to have put in a number of years of practice or to have gained experience by serving as a judicial officer for a specified number of years. Their ability and knowledge associated with the clarity of purpose and methods which the judges display enables the judicial system to perform to its optimum efficiency. The role of the judge obligates him to continue to invest in up-dating his knowledge of law and skills of justice dispensation. The holder of the Office if not able and knowledgeable would not have the confidence to function, much less with independence. It is said : Strange, how much you’ve got to know; Before you know, how little you know.[19]
XXXXXXXXXXXX
[16] S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp. SCC 87, para 27. [17] S.C. Advocates-on-Record Association & Ors. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441, para 273, per Ahmadi, J.. [18] C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 457, para 41, per K. Ramaswamy, J. [19] Anonymous [20] University of New Brunswick Law Journal, Vol. 45, 1999, p.81.
49. Conduct of Judge in private:- “Judicial office is essentially a public trust”
Conduct of Judge in private:- When a judge sits on trial, he himself is on trial. The trust and confidence of ‘we the people’ in judiciary stands on the bedrock of its ability to dispense fearless and impartial justice. Any action which may shake that foundation is just not permitted. Once having assumed the judicial office, the judge is a judge for 24 hours. It is a mistaken assumption for any holder of judicial office to say that I am a judge from 10 to 5 and from 5 to 10 it is my private life. A judge is constantly under public gaze. “Judicial office is essentially a public trust. Society is, therefore, entitled to expect that a Judge must be a man of high integrity, honesty and required to have moral vigour, ethical firmness and impervious to corrupt or venial influences. He is required to keep most exacting standards of propriety in judicial conduct. Any conduct which tends to undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the court would be deleterious to the efficacy of judicial process. Society, therefore, expects higher standards of conduct and rectitude from a Judge. Unwritten code of conduct is writ large for judicial officers to emulate and imbibe high moral or ethical standards expected of a higher judicial functionary, as wholesome standard of conduct which would generate public confidence, accord dignity to the judicial office and enhance public image, not only of the Judge but the court itself. It is, therefore, a basic requirement that a Judge’s official and personal conduct be free from impropriety; the same must be in tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity. The standard of conduct is higher than that expected of a layman and also higher than that expected of an advocate. In fact, even his private life must adhere to high standards of probity and propriety, higher than those deemed acceptable for others. Therefore, the Judge can ill-afford to seek shelter from the fallen standard in the society.” [30]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[29] Edmund Heward, Lord Denning, A Biography, 2nd Edn., pp.35-36.
[30] C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 457, para 21, per K. Ramaswamy, J.
50.A Applicant at the fag end of his nearing the death by man-made he feels that he is at the TAIL END of PATH of THORNS and at the end of this Application; Applicant wish to end the Application for Transfer to High Court.
Karnataka High Court’s Judgment, which came to be secured by Fraud by Judges, Society etc., detailed in foregone pages . The Court observed ILR 1995 KAR 3139 , in par thus :-( 33 ) Lastly we are constrained to observe above the serious allegations made against the Judges of the Court ( sitting, retired, transferred) and retired Judges of the Supreme Court in the Public Interest Litigation filed by the two Practicing Advocates of this Bar. In the case reported in P. PERUMAL & ORS vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU &ORS ( 33. 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 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.”
50.B. Beneficiaries of this Judgment are the Hon’ble Judges of Karnataka High Court, shows that nearly 90% to 95% Judges constituting Karnataka High Court, is presented by collating with great difficulty the Tear, Names etc., from 1980 to 2001-02 is in the box below:-
1980: Chief Justice Mr. D.M. Chandrashekhar. K.Bhimiah, V.S.Malimath, K.Jagannath Shetty, M.S.Nesargi, M.N. Venkatachaliaha, M.Rama Jois, K.S. Puttaswamy, N.Venkatachala, N.R.Kudoor, G.N.Sabahit, N.D.Venkatesh, M.S.Patil , R.S.Mahendra , R.G.Desai, K.A.Swami , D.R. Vitthal Rao.
Not Involved: M.K. Srinivas Iyengar ,P.P.Bopanna, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , M.Nagappa ,
1981 : Chief Justice Mr. D.M. Chandrashekhar. K.Bhimiah, V.S.Malimath, K.Jagannath Shetty, M.S.Nesargi, M.K. Srinivas Iyengar , M.N. Venkatachaliaha, M.Rama Jois, K.S. Puttaswamy, P.P.Bopanna, N.Venkatachala, N.R.Kudoor, G.N.Sabahit, N.D.Venkatesh, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , M.S.Patil , R.S.Mahendra, M.Nagappa , K.A.Swami , D.R. Vitthal Rao, P.A.Kulkarni.
,……..Not Involved: M.K. Srinivas Iyengar ,P.P.Bopanna, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , M.Nagappa ,,……..
1982 : Chief Justice Mr. D.M. Chandrashekhar. K.Bhimiah, V.S.Malimath, K.Jagannath Shetty, M.S.Nesargi, M.N. Venkatachaliaha, M.Rama Jois, K.S. Puttaswamy, P.P.Bopanna, N.Venkatachala, N.R.Kudoor, G.N.Sabahit , N.D.Venkatesh, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , M.S.Patil , R.S.Mahendra, M.Nagappa[D] , K.A.Swami , D.R. Vitthal Rao, P.A.Kulkarni , A.K.Laxmeshwar , S.G.Doddakale Gowda.
,……..Not Involved:P.P.Bopanna, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , M.Nagappa ,,……..
1983 : Ag. Chief Justice V.S.Malimath, K.Jagannath Shetty, M.S.Nesargi, M.N. Venkatachaliaha, M.Rama Jois, K.S. Puttaswamy, P.P.Bopanna, N.Venkatachala, N.R.Kudoor, G.N.Sabahit , N.D.Venkatesh, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , M.S.Patil , R.S.Mahendra, R.G.Desai, K.A.Swami , D.R. Vitthal Rao, P.A.Kulkarni , A.K.Laxmeshwar , S.G.Doddakale Gowda , S.R. Rajshekharmurthy , M.Ramkrishna
Note: Justice M.Ramakrishna Biodata: Appointed District Judge in 1977 but resigned soon thereafter. Elevated as a Judge High Court of Karnataka on 10-01-1983.Appointed Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir High Court on 10.10.1994 and later Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court on 18.06.1997.
……. Not Involved:P.P.Bopanna, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , M.Nagappa ,……..
1984 : Chief Justice V.S.Malimath, K.Jagannath Shetty, M.S.Nesargi, M.N. Venkatachaliaha, M.Rama Jois, K.S. Puttaswamy, P.P.Bopanna, N.Venkatachala, N.R.Kudoor, G.N.Sabahit , N.D.Venkatesh, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , M.S.Patil , R.S.Mahendra, R.G.Desai, K.A.Swami , D.R. Vitthal Rao, P.A.Kulkarni , A.K.Laxmeshwar , S.G.Doddakale Gowda , S.R. Rajshekharmurthy , M.Ramkrishna , B.Muralidher Rao , S.A. Hakeem.
…..Not Involved:P.P.Bopanna, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , M.Nagappa ,…..
1985 :Chief Justice K.Jagannath Shetty, M.S.Nesargi, M.N. Venkatachaliaha, M.Rama Jois, K.S. Puttaswamy, P.P.Bopanna, N.Venkatachala, N.R.Kudoor, N.D.Venkatesh, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , M.S.Patil , R.S.Mahendra, R.G.Desai, K.A.Swami , D.R. Vitthal Rao, P.A.Kulkarni , A.K.Laxmeshwar , S.G.Doddakale Gowda , S.R. Rajshekharmurthy , M.Ramkrishna , B.Muralidher Rao , S.A. Hakeem
Registrar: R.C. Ijari . A.G: Santosh Hegde.
…..Not Involved:P.P.Bopanna, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , B.Muralidher Rao ……
1986 : Chief Justice K.Jagannath Shetty, M.S.Nesargi, M.N. Venkatachaliaha, M.Rama Jois, K.S. Puttaswamy, P.P.Bopanna, N.Venkatachala, N.R.Kudoor, N.D.Venkatesh, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , M.S.Patil , R.S.Mahendra, R.G.Desai, K.A.Swami , D.R. Vitthal Rao, P.A.Kulkarni , A.K.Laxmeshwar , S.G.Doddakale Gowda , S.R. Rajshekharmurthy , M.Ramkrishna , B.Muralidher Rao , S.A. Hakeem
Registrar: R.C. Ijari . A.G: Santosh Hegde.
……..Not Involved:P.P.Bopanna, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , B.Muralidher Rao ……
1987 : Chief Justice P.C.Jain , M.S.Nesargi, M.N. Venkatachaliaha, M.Rama Jois, P.P.Bopanna, N.Venkatachala, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , M.S.Patil , R.G.Desai, K.A.Swami , D.R. Vitthal Rao, P.A.Kulkarni , A.K.Laxmeshwar , S.G.Doddakale Gowda , S.R. Rajshekharmurthy , M.Ramkrishna , B.Muralidher Rao , S.A. Hakeem , K.Shiva Shankar Bhat, P.K.Shyam Sunder, K.B.Navadagi, H.G.Balakrishna .
Registrar: B.Jagannath Hegde A.G: Santosh Hegde . KAT Chairman N.D.Venkatesh
…….Not Involved:Chief Justice P.C.Jain ,P.P.Bopanna, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , B.Muralidher Rao ……
1988: Chief Justice P.C.Jain ,M.Rama Jois, P.P.Bopanna, N.Venkatachala, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs ,K.A.Swami , D.R. Vitthal Rao, S.G.Doddakale Gowda , S.R. Rajshekharmurthy , M.Ramkrishna , B.Muralidher Rao , S.A. Hakeem , K.Shiva Shankar Bhat, P.K.Shyam Sunder, K.B.Navadagi, D.P.Hiremath, H.G.Balakrishna , S.Rajendra Babu, K.Ramachanriaha .
Registrar: B.Jagannath Hegde A.G: T.N. Narasinha Murthy.
……Not-Involved:Chief Justice P.C.Jain ,P.P.Bopanna, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , B.Muralidher Rao…….
1989: Chief Justice P.C.Jain , M.Rama Jois, P.P.Bopanna, N.Venkatachala, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs ,K.A.Swami , D.R. Vitthal Rao, A.K.Laxmeshwar , S.G.Doddakale Gowda , S.R. Rajshekharmurthy , M.Ramkrishna , B.Muralidher Rao , S.A. Hakeem , K.Shiva Shankar Bhat, P.K.Shyam Sunder, K.B.Navadagi, H.G.Balakrishna , S.Rajendra Babu, K.Ramachanriaha .
Registrar: B.Jagannath Hegde A.G: C. Shivappa.
…….Not Involved:Chief Justice P.C.Jain ,P.P.Bopanna, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , B.Muralidher Rao …..
1990: Chief Justice S. Mohan , M.Rama Jois, N.Venkatachala, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , K.A.Swami , D.R. Vitthal Rao, A.K.Laxmeshwar , S.G.Doddakale Gowda , S.R. Rajshekharmurthy , M.Ramkrishna , B.Muralidher Rao , S.A. Hakeem , K.Shiva Shankar Bhat, P.K.Shyam Sunder, K.B.Navadagi, H.G.Balakrishna , S.Rajendra Babu, K.Ramachanriaha , B.P. Singh , G.P.Shiva Prakash, Shivaraj Patil, N.Y.Hanumathappa, B.N.Krishnan, N.D.V. Bhat , M.M.Mirdhe , R. Ramakrishna, B. Jagannath Hegde , K,Jagannath Shetty , A.B. Murgod .
Registrar: S.Venkataraman.
….Not Involved:Chief Justice P.C.Jain ,P.P.Bopanna, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , B.Muralidher Rao …..
1991 ; Chief Justice S. Mohan , M.Rama Jois, N.Venkatachala, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs ,K.A.Swami , D.R. Vitthal Rao, S.G.Doddakale Gowda , S.R. Rajshekharmurthy , M.Ramkrishna , B.Muralidher Rao , S.A. Hakeem , K.Shiva Shankar Bhat, P.K.Shyam Sunder, K.B.Navadagi, D.P.Hiremath, H.G.Balakrishna , S.Rajendra Babu, K.Ramachanriaha , G.P.Shiva Prakash, Shivaraj Patil, N.Y.Hanumathappa, B.N.Krishnan, N.D.V. Bhat , M.M.Mirdhe , R. Ramakrishna, B. Jagannath Hegde , K,Jagannath Shetty , A.B. Murgod . Registrar: S.Venkataraman .
…. Not Involved: S.P. Bharucha, M.P.Chndrakant Raj Urs , B.Muralidher Rao , B.P. Singh , ….
1992 ; Ag CJ K.A.Swami , M.Ramkrishna , S.A. Hakeem , K.Shiva Shankar Bhat, P.K.Shyam Sunder, K.B.Navadagi, D.P.Hiremath, S.Rajendra Babu, G.P.Shiva Prakash, Shivaraj Patil, N.Y.Hanumathappa, B.N.Krishnan, N.D.V. Bhat , M.M.Mirdhe , R. Ramakrishna, B. Jagannath Hegde , K,Jagannath Shetty , A.B. Murgod , C.Shivappa , R.V.Vasanthakumar , L. Sreenivas Reddy .
Registrar General : S.Venkataraman .Registrar[V] B.K.Somshekhar . Registrar [J] M.P.Chinnappa . Registrar [A]: C.Shivalingiaha .. . Advocate General:P.P. Muthanna
…. Not Involved:Chief Justice S.P. Bharucha,…….
1993 ; Ag Chief Justice K.A.Swami, M.Ramkrishna , S.A. Hakeem , K.Shiva Shankar Bhat, K.B.Navadagi, D.P.Hiremath, S.Rajendra Babu, G.P.Shiva Prakash, Shivaraj Patil, N.Y.Hanumathappa, B.N.Krishnan, N.D.V. Bhat , M.M.Mirdhe , R. Ramakrishna, B. Jagannath Hegde , K,Jagannath Shetty , A.B. Murgod , C.Shivappa , R.V.Vasanthakumar , L. Sreenivas Reddy , A.J.Sadashiva , K.H.N. Khuranga , R.V. Raveendran , S. Venkataraman .
Registrar General : S.Venkataraman .Registrar[V] B.K.Somshekhar . Registrar [J] M.P.Chinnappa . Registrar [A]: C.Shivalingiaha ..
…. Not Involved:Chief Justice S.P. Bharucha,…Advocate General: P.P. Muthanna….
1994 : M.Ramkrishna , S.A. Hakeem , K.B.Navadagi, S.Rajendra Babu, G.P.Shiva Prakash, N.D.V. Bhat , M.M.Mirdhe , R. Ramakrishna, B. Jagannath Hegde , A.B. Murgod , R.V.Vasanthakumar , L. Sreenivas Reddy , A.J.Sadashiva , K.H.N. Khuranga , R.V. Raveendran , S. Venkataraman , V.P. Mohan Kumar, Kumar Rajaratnam, T.C. Chuta , B.S Raikote, R.J. Babu, S.R. Nayak, B.K. Somshekhar, R.G.Vaidyanatha, T.S. Thakur, P.I.Krishna Moorthy , J.Eshwar Prasad.
Registrar General : M.P.Chinnappa .Registrar[V] G.Patri Basavana Goud . Registrar [J] . T. Abdul Mujeeb Registrar [A]: C.Shivalingiaha .
Note: Justice M.Ramakrishna Biodata: Appointed Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir High Court on 10.10.1994 and later Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court on 18.06.1997
…. Not Involved: Chief Justice S.B. Majumdar , …Advocate General: B.V. Achaya……
1995 : Ag. Chief Justice S.A. Hakeem , K.B.Navadagi, S.Rajendra Babu, G.P.Shiva Prakash, M.M.Mirdhe , R. Ramakrishna, G.C. Bharuka , A.B. Murgod , R.V.Vasanthakumar , L. Sreenivas Reddy , H.N. Tilhari, A.J.Sadashiva , K.H.N. Khuranga , R.V. Raveendran , S. Venkataraman , V.P. Mohan Kumar, Kumar Rajaratnam, T.S. Thakur, P.I.Krishna Moorthy , J.Eshwar Prasad , M.B. Vishwanath , C.N. Ashwath Narayan Rao, B.Padmaraj , H.N. Narayan .
Registrar General : M.P.Chinnappa .Registrar[V] G.Patri Basavana Goud . Registrar [J] . T. Abdul Mujeeb Registrar [A]: C.Shivalingiaha .
…. Not Involved: K.S. Bhktavatsalam , M.F. Saldhana ,…Advocate General: B.V. Achaya……
1996 : Ag. Chief Justice S.A. Hakeem, Ag. Chief Justice S.Rajendra Babu, Chief Justice R.P.Sethi , S.Rajendra Babu, P.I.Krishna Moorthy , J.Eshwar Prasad , G.P.Shiva Prakash, M.M.Mirdhe , R. Ramakrishna, G.C. Bharuka , A.B. Murgod , L. Sreenivas Reddy , H.N. Tilhari, A.J.Sadashiva , K.H.N. Khuranga , R.V. Raveendran , S. Venkataraman , V.P. Mohan Kumar, Kumar Rajaratnam, T.S. Thakur, M.B. Vishwanath , C.N. Ashwath Narayan Rao, B.Padmaraj , H.N. Narayan , P.Vishwanath Shetty, A.M. Farooq, Chandrashekaraiah, Chidanad Ullal , H.L. Dattu , B.K. Sanglad, Mohammed Anwar , M.P. Chinnappa , B.N. Mallikarjuna .
Registrar General : V.G. Sabahit .Registrar[V] S.K. Venkat Reddy . Registrar [J] . T. Abdul Mujeeb Registrar [A]: C.Shivalingiaha .
…. Not Involved: K.S. Bhktavatsalam , M.F. Saldhana , …Advocate General: S. Vijay Shankar ……….
1997 : Chief Justice R.P.Sethi ,S.Rajendra Babu, P.I.Krishna Moorthy ,G.P.Shiva Prakash, G.C. Bharuka , H.N. Tilhari, A.J.Sadashiva , K.H.N. Khuranga , R.V. Raveendran , S. Venkataraman , V.P. Mohan Kumar, Kumar Rajaratnam, T.S. Thakur, M.B. Vishwanath , C.N. Ashwath Narayan Rao, B.Padmaraj , H.N. Narayan , P.Vishwanath Shetty, A.M. Farooq, Chandrashekaraiah, Chidanad Ullal , H.L. Dattu , B.K. Sanglad, Mohammed Anwar , M.P. Chinnappa , B.N. Mallikarjuna .
Additional Judges: B.S. Sreenivas Rao , G.Patri Basavana Goud , S.R. Venkatesh Murthy , T.N. Vallinayagam .
Registrar General : V.G. Sabahit . Registrar[V] S.K. Venkat Reddy . Registrar [J] . H.G. Ramesh Registrar [A]: C.Shivalingiaha .
…. Not Involved: M.F. Saldhana , …Advocate General: S. Vijay Shankar ……….
1998 : Chief Justice R.P.Sethi , Y. Bhaskar Rao , G.C. Bharuka , V.K. Singhal , L. Sreenivas Reddy , H.N. Tilhari, A.J.Sadashiva , K.H.N. Khuranga , R.V. Raveendran , V.P. Mohan Kumar, Kumar Rajaratnam, T.S. Thakur, M.B. Vishwanath , C.N. Ashwath Narayan Rao, B.Padmaraj , H.N. Narayan , P.Vishwanath Shetty, A.M. Farooq, Chandrashekaraiah, Chidanad Ullal , H.L. Dattu , B.K. Sanglad, Mohammed Anwar , M.P. Chinnappa , B.N. Mallikarjuna , T.N. Vallinayagam.
Additional Judges: B.S. Sreenivas Rao , G.Patri Basavana Goud , S.R. Venkatesh Murthy S.R. Bannurmath , V. Gopal Gowda .
Registrar General : V.G. Sabahit . Registrar[V] S.K. Venkat Reddy . Registrar [J] . H.G. Ramesh Registrar [A]: C.Shivalingiaha .
…. Not Involved: M.F. Saldhana , Ashok Bhan , , H. Rangavittalachar ,…Advocate General: S. Vijay Shankar ……….
1999 : Chief Justice R.P.Sethi , Ag. CJ Y. Bhaskar Rao , G.C. Bharuka , V.K. Singhal , H.N. Tilhari, A.J.Sadashiva , K.H.N. Khuranga , R.V. Raveendran , V.P. Mohan Kumar, Kumar Rajaratnam, T.S. Thakur, M.B. Vishwanath , C.N. Ashwath Narayan Rao, B.Padmaraj , H.N. Narayan , P.Vishwanath Shetty, A.M. Farooq, Chandrashekaraiah, Chidanad Ullal , H.L. Dattu , B.K. Sanglad, Mohammed Anwar , M.P. Chinnappa , B.N. Mallikarjuna , T.N. Vallinayagam, B.S. Sreenivas Rao , G.Patri Basavana Goud , S.R. Venkatesh Murthy ,
Additional Judges: S.R. Bannurmath , V. Gopal Gowda , K.R. Prasad Rao, N.S. Veerabhdraiah ,
Registrar General : V.G. Sabahit . Registrar[A] Veerabhadraswamy.K Registrar[V] M.S. Rajendra Prasad Registrar [J] . A.C. Kabbin .
…. Not Involved: M.F. Saldhana , Ashok Bhan , H. Rangavittalachar ,…Advocate General: S. Vijay Shankar ……….
2000 : Chief Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao , G.C. Bharuka , V.K. Singhal , H.N. Tilhari, K.H.N. Khuranga , R.V. Raveendran , V.P. Mohan Kumar, Kumar Rajaratnam, T.S. Thakur, B.Padmaraj , H.N. Narayan , P.Vishwanath Shetty, A.M. Farooq, Chandrashekaraiah, Chidanad Ullal , H.L. Dattu , B.K. Sanglad, Mohammed Anwar , M.P. Chinnappa , B.N. Mallikarjuna , T.N. Vallinayagam, G.Patri Basavana Goud , S.R. Venkatesh Murthy , S.R. Bannurmath , V. Gopal Gowda , K.R. Prasad Rao, N.S. Veerabhdraiah , A.V. Srinivasa Reddy .
Additional Judges: R.Gururajan , Manjula Chellur, K. Sreedhar Rao , V.G.Sabahit
Registrar General : A.C. Kabbin . Registrar[A] Veerabhadraswamy.K Registrar[V] A.S.Pachapure Registrar [J]. K.Ramakrishna
…. Not Involved: M.F. Saldhana , Ashok Bhan , , H. Rangavittalachar ,…Advocate General: A.N.Jayram……….
2001-02 : Chief Justice P. Venkataram Reddi , G.C. Bharuka , H.N. Tilhari, K.H.N. Khuranga , R.V. Raveendran , V.P. Mohan Kumar, Kumar Rajaratnam, T.S. Thakur, B.Padmaraj , H.N. Narayan , P.Vishwanath Shetty, A.M. Farooq, Chandrashekaraiah, Chidanad Ullal , H.L. Dattu , B.K. Sanglad, Mohammed Anwar , M.P. Chinnappa , B.N. Mallikarjuna , T.N. Vallinayagam, G.Patri Basavana Goud , S.R. Venkatesh Murthy ,S.R. Bannurmath , V. Gopal Gowda , K.R. Prasad Rao, N.S. Veerabhdraiah , A.V. Srinivasa Reddy , R.Gururajan , Manjula Chellur, K. Sreedhar Rao , V.G.Sabahit , K.L. Manjunath , N.Kumar , N.K.Patil.
…. Not Involved: M.F. Saldhana , Ashok Bhan , H. Rangavittalachar , D.V. Shylendra Kumar,. ……….
https://www.facebook.com/digvijay.mote/media_set?set=a.521545151210571.121921.100000652710482&type=1
51. Wherefore, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this Application For Transfer of case No. C.C. No. 6711/2012 to Hon’ble Karnataka High Court u/s 407 of Cr. P.C in the interest Justice and Equity.
This Application is drafted and signed by Applicant Accused
Date: 31st July, 2013 Applicant Accused
BANGALORE
[DIGVIJAY MOTE ]
Applicant in Person -
-
-
-
-
-
jailcorrupt867judges 
Pingback: Para 41 | jailcorrupt867judges
Pingback: Para 42 | jailcorrupt867judges
Pingback: Para 43-A | jailcorrupt867judges
Pingback: Para 43-B | jailcorrupt867judges
Pingback: Para 44 | jailcorrupt867judges
Pingback: Para 45 | jailcorrupt867judges
Pingback: Para 46 | jailcorrupt867judges
Pingback: Para 47 | jailcorrupt867judges
Pingback: Para 48 | jailcorrupt867judges
Pingback: Para 49 | jailcorrupt867judges
Pingback: Para 50-A | jailcorrupt867judges
Pingback: Para 50-B | jailcorrupt867judges
Pingback: Para 51 | jailcorrupt867judges
Pingback: Typed Copy of “22nd Oct 2013-ACMM-8; Court Order-Transferring CC 6711/12 to Kar HC” | jailcorrupt867judges