Petn

Drafts:

  • What is Justice?
  • What is Court of Law
  • Judges have Immunity; on their own volition; hence No-Immunity nor Sanction required
  • Laws violated by Judicial proceedings, Judgments &  was utterly abused by 867 Judges.
  •  Lokayukta & High Court must not protect  Corrupt, Criminal judges; as Institutions are Eternal
  • Confidence of People in Court & Lokayukta is  Shaken by Corrupt Judges.
  • What are the Prayers?
  • Who are the Respondents?
  • Who is Petitioner?
  • Classified below as per Index:
    [01] Violation of Terms of Agreement with Government[02] Violation of Terms of B.D.A “Conditional Approval”[03] Enrolment of Bogus & Ineligible persons as  Members

    [04] Enforcing Illegal Agreements with Court Decrees & Compromises

    [05] Supreme Court’s watch on Member-Judge of KSJDE.HBCS

    XXXXXX YYYYYYYYY ZZZZZZZZ

    [01] Violation of Terms of Agreement with Government

    Extracts of the said Agreement and the Laws the Society had to follow:  A one and only case to show case Judges of Karnataka High Court how they hunted for cases filed by Society against Govt, or who-so-ever is as follows:
    [1]  WP. No. 2382 of 1990   Justice S. Rajendra Babu, member & beneficiary of HBCS Stays “Stays conversion fine, Land acquisition Office Cost and litigation cost [026.08 ] .
    [a] . Justice S. Rajendra Babu. Interim Order [026.08 ]

    [b] WP. Final Order: Justice Chandrashekariah. Judgement 11th NOV 1996 [026.09]
    [c] W. A. 138 of 1997.  R. P. SETHI, CHIEF JUSTICE  AND. JUSTICE S. R. BANNURMATH
    25th June, 1997 [ 026.04 Jmnt in WA].
    [d] Supreme Court Finding: in Society’s   SLP No.12153 of 2000 [026.22]  [List of Dates [026.22A] is  SC.Judgment..Society Need Not Pay Convertion Fine. Revenue Site Owners have to Pay .   It means, that Site Owners have to pay conversion Charge as any other Revenue Site owners, including 867 Judges. Then, if so, how can B.D.A approve Revenue Layout.
    [e]  12th April, 2006 High Court Judgment [21.4.04.Society Need Not Pay Convertion Fine, Est Cost & Litigation Cost. J.B. Padmraj & J. Abdul Nazeer.24pgs. ] on Society’s Petition in WP. No. 2382 of 1990 [ Judgment ] :On direction of Supreme Court finding [Fraud:  SC Order (SC.Judgment..Society Need Not Pay Convertion Fine. Revenue Site Owners have to Pay ) ] , the High Court disposes stating “There nothing in Agreement to state that Society has to Pay Conversion Fine, Establishment charges, Litigation Cost etc.
    [e] 5] W.P. 1600 of 1994 [Hand Over 17 Acres Land; by THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. P. SHIVAPRAKASH, despite Govt. stating Society has not Deposited Rs. 2.02 Crores [ Read More ]
    D.D. 10th DAY OF FEBRUARY 1994 [024.03 ]

    [02] Violation of Terms of B.D.A “Conditional Approval”

    1] In W.P. Nos. 39338 of 1992. JUSTICE R.V.RAVEEDRAN,

    member of the Society. Date of Disposal: Nov. 13 1996 [002.05 ] [ Society’s Affidavit: 2003
    Karnataka Urban Development Department’s Affidavit
    [03] Enrolment of Bogus & Ineligible persons as  Members

    Judges & Who else are Prohibited to Members of Judicial Employees Housing Society?

     [04] Enforcing Illegal Agreements with Court Decrees & Compromises

    [05] Supreme Court’s watch on Member-Judge of KSJDE.HBCS

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s