SUPREME IN THE COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRL. M.P. NO. 24767 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION (CRL.

) NO. 93 OF 2011 IN THE MATTER OF: PRADEEP N. SHARMA VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS ... PETITIONER

REJOINDER

OF

THE

PETITIONER

TO

THE

REPLY

AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 1 I, Pradeep N. Sharma, aged about 58 years, resident of Plot No. 465/A-2, Sector 1-C, Gandhinagar- 382007, Gujarat do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: 1. That I am the Petitioner and as such, I am fully competent to swear and depose this affidavit and fully aware of the facts and circumstances of the present case.

2.

That I have read and understood the contents of the accompanying Reply Affidavit sworn by the Respondent No. 1- State of Gujarat and deny the averments and contents thereof as wrong and incorrect, except to the extent hereinafter specifically admitted. The Petitioner most humbly seeks to submit this short rejoinder affidavit,

reserving the liberty to file a detailed affidavit if the need so arises.

3.

The reply affidavit filed by Respondent No.1/ State of Gujarat dated 01.04.2014 through Shri Sanjaykumar S. Pandya, Under Secretary (Law & Order), Government of Gujarat, Home Department (herein after reply

affidavit) essentially seeks to raises the following pleas against the Petitioner herein, which are summarized herein below for the convenience of this Honble Court:i) That the order dated 12.05.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Court has not been complied with, and thus the Petitioner should be held in contempt. ii) That the Charge Sheets have been filed in the cases whose investigation has been sought to be transferred from the State Police to the CBI and therefore, in absence of any demonstration as to how any prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner, the accompanying petition deserves to be dismissed. iii) That the transcripts were posted on two websitesCobrapost and Gulail (herein after the said websites), and since the said websites

themselves do not vouch for its authenticity, the application under reply deserves to be rejected. iv) Petitioner has allegedly concealed the fact that he had filed a Criminal Complaint dated 06.01.2014 before Police Station-Gandhinagar and the rejection of the same by a competent officer dated 13.01.2014. v) That during the routine intelligence of two mobile numbers in 2009 it was revealed that the Petitioner herein/Shri P.N. Sharma, IAS was indulging in suspicious financial transactions, benami properties, disproportionate assets and illicit relationship with married women. vi) That the Lady Architect in question has already given her statement before the Gujarat State Women Commission stating therein that she was under surveillance at the request of her father and there is nothing further to be probed by this Hon'ble Court.

vii)

That there are several illegal benefits given to Shri Kuldeep Sharma, IPS, elder brother of the Petitioner herein.

viii)

That the Commission of Enquiry (herein after CoI) has been constituted by the State Government to probe the said transcripts and thus nothing survived for this court to adjudicate upon.

4.

At the outset, the Petitioner rejects and denies each and every allegation that has been leveled in the reply affidavit filed by the State Government. The said reply affidavit only serves to reinforce the averments made by the Petitioner herein in the Writ petition as well as the instant Crl MP.

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:

5.

The Petitioner endeavors to respond in seriatim to the various allegations that have been raised in the ReplyAffidavit in response.

RE: ORDER DATED 12.05.2011 NOT COMPLIED WITH:6. It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner has consistently and constantly stated that there are two primary reasons for the hostility, malice, malafide and bias of the State Administration against him, at the behest of Respondent No. 3/Shri Narendra Modi, which is reflected and manifested in the FIRs in question, which FIRs the Petitioner seeks transfer of to the CBI.

7.

Firstly, he was being victimized for being the younger brother of Shri Kuldip Sharma IPS, who was one of the senior most and most decorated police officers in the State of Gujarat and who during his tenure as Addl. Director General of Police (Crime) from 28.04.2003 to 01.08.2005 refused to follow the illegal Diktats issued by the Respondent No. 3 herein/ Shri Narendra Modi through Shri Amit Shah, the then MoS, Home. The struggles and sufferings that my elder brother has to undertake and undergo to maintain the dignity and impartiality of his high office from machinations and manipulations of the ModiAmit Shah duo is well-documented in the Writ Petition and well-known in the public domain and is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. The Respondent No.3/Shri Narendra Modis intention was to teach a lesson to my elder brother Shri Kuldip Sharma by causing harm to me.

8.

The second and probably the more potent reason, as the subsequent events have revealed was the apprehension harbored by the Respondent No. 3/Shri Narendra Modi that the Petitioner is aware of his illicit liaison/relationship with the said lady architect (hereinafter lady architect).

9.

The said lady architect was introduced to the Respondent No. 3-Shri Narendra Modi by the Petitioner herein during his tenure as the District Collector of Bhuj. The Lady

Architect has confided in the Petitioner about the true nature of her relationship, which developed after the said introduction with the Respondent no.3/Shri Narendra Modi. Mr Modi apprehends that the Petitioner herein, in addition to this information provided by the Lady Architect herself, would have certain additional information and documents like CD etc. showing Shri Modi in a compromising position with the said lady architect.

10.

Shri Modi is currently serving his third term as the Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat. Shri Modi always harbored prime ministerial ambitions. He has carefully cultivated his public image and persona to achieve his most cherished personal ambition of occupying the PMs chair. Naturally, Shri Modi felt that if the information of his illicit liaison with a much younger lady architect would leak out in public domain then it would cause a severe blow to the careful sculpted public image and grievously damage his chances political ambitions.

11.

Consequently, Shri Modi employed the entire might of the State Administration to victimize, intimidate, terrorize and persecute the Petitioner herein, including registration of the baseless said FIRs and the consequent incarceration of the Petitioner.

12.

This took the Petitioner by utter surprise especially when the Petitioner has never claimed, in public or private, that he has any access or possession to any such CD or document that can reveal Shri Modis liaison with the said lady architect. Though he was personally informed about this liaison by the lady architect herself, he has always chosen to maintain a dignified discreet position, as the Petitioner verily believed and still does believe, that as mature consenting adults, the nature of the relationship that Shri Modi has with the said lady architect is entirely their private matter, over which the Petitioner has locus to comment. However, Shri Modi embarked on a vindictive spree against the Petitioner herein and ensured

registration of the patently baseless FIRs send had the Petitioner thrown in jail, which a view to intimate him.

13.

The Petitioner herein, thus was faced with no alternative and was forced to publicly speak the truth by filing the accompanying Writ Petitions [WP (Crl) 93/2011 and WP(Crl) 175/2011] seeking relief of transfer of the 5 (five) FIRs registered against the Petitioner from the State CID/Police to the CBI. The Petitioner was duty bound to disclose the reasons for seeking such a transfer and the two reasons as stated supra Shri Kuldip Sharma and the lady architect-Modi liaison was disclosed.

14.

The said writ petition [WP(Crl) No. 93/2011] was listed before this Honble Court on 12.05.2011 wherein the Respondent No. 1/State of Gujarat as well as the Respondent No. 3/Shri Narendra Modi appeared on service of notice through their respective Senior Counsels and Advocate on record.

15.

On the very first date of hearing i.e., on 12.05.2011, a massive hue and cry was raised by the Ld. Senior Counsels representing the Respondent No. 3-Shri Narendra Modi and the State of Gujarat about the statements made qua Shri Modi-Lady Architect liaison. In response to which the Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the main purpose of the instant Writ Petition is not to wreak any personal vendetta against Respondent No. 3 or to cast any aspersion on him but to prima facie demonstrate the malafide harbored by Respondent No. 3 and the State Government against the Petitioner which necessitated the transfer of the case registered against the Petitioner from the State Police to the CBI. The Petitioner painstakingly made it clear that he was not associated or affiliated with any political party nor the instant petition should be seen as a political tool to be used against Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner was only interested in securing justice for himself and he is only

concerned with demonstrating that the action of the State in registering the case against him was malicious and malafide. The averments made in the instant Petition were only to the extent of factually justifying the submissions made and the prayers sought therein.

16.

That the Petitioner undertook to amend the original contents of the Writ Petition and a duly amended version was filed on 06.07.2011 in which the Petitioner has substantially deleted the detailed averments made against the Respondent No. 3 and his relationship with the said lady architect as per the direction of this Honble Court. However, it is denied that the Petitioner ever undertook to give up this ground in toto as doing so would denude the Petitioner of a major ground justifying transfer and render this Writ Petition susceptible for dismissal.

17.

It is most respectfully submitted that the RespondentState Government has chosen not to act for a period of almost three years. Only when the instant Crl MP was filed did along with the said transcripts that the Respondent/State Govt has raised this new but totally dubious plea of contempt against the Petitioner for noncompliance of the order dated 12.05.2011.

18.

On the contrary, it is most respectfully submitted that if any party in this litigation has committed contempt, then it is the State Govt. When the petitioner filed the instant Writ Petitions in the year 2011, he had no knowledge of the telephonic transcripts, which the Petitioner became aware of only when the CBI annexed them based on the Statement made by Shri GL Singhal, IPS in the Ishrat Jahan murder case and which were carried by the said web sites. These transcripts revealed that the

submissions that were made by the Petitioner in the original unamended Writ Petition were correct and the State Govt and Shri Modi, have chosen to mislead this Honble Court on 12.05.2011.

19.

The State Govt in the reply affidavit does not make any clear unambiguous averment denying the veracity of the tapes. Shri Modi too interestingly has chosen to remain silent. He has not filed any affidavit in response to the Crl MP denying his liaison with the lady architect or denying the veracity of the transcripts.

20.

The said transcripts which clearly reveal commission of several illegal acts and violations of laws, which the Petitioner himself was unaware of when he filed the instant Writ Petitions. The transcripts reveal the illegal surveillance and unusual high personal interest shown by

Shri Amit Shah into the personal life of the lady architect at the behest of Saheb (Shri Narendra Modi). These transcripts only prove that there was a justifiable ground for the Petitioner to raise the detailed averments as made in the original un-amended Writ Petition.

21.

Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that in the light of the transcripts that are annexed in the instant Crl. Misc. Petition, the averments of the State Government that the order dated 12.05.2011 has not been complied with deserves to be rejected out rightly.

RE: FILING OF CHARGE SHEETS:-

22.

The Petitioner had filed the instant Writ petition praying for transfer of the 4 FIRs [and WP (Crl) No. 175/2011 for the fifth FIR] that were registered against him by the State Police to an independent and impartial agency i.e., the CBI. It is submitted that the mere filing of the Charge Sheet does not preclude this Hon'ble Court from transferring the said cases to the CBI. The Petitioner has mentioned and challenged the very basis and contents of the FIRs and any Charge Sheet or proceedings consequential thereto are also naturally impugned.

23.

In any case, the filing of the Charge sheet does not prevent or prohibit this Hon'ble Court in any manner from granting the reliefs as sought for in the instant Writ Petition, which has been held by this Honble Court in Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat - (2010) 2 SCC 200 and has been affirmed in Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of Karnataka - (2012) 7 SCC 407 and followed in K.V. Rajendran v. Supt. Of Police (2013) 12 SCC 480.

RE: WEBSITE COBRAPOST AND GULAIL:-

24.

The contention of the State Government is that both the websites themselves do not affirm the authenticity of the transcripts and therefore no reliance can be placed upon the same is misconceived and baseless. It is submitted that the telephone transcripts were released by the two websites based on the Charge Sheet that was filed by the CBI in the infamous Isharat Jahan false murder case. The said conversations are from the period between August to September, 2009 and have not been recorded by or at the behest of the Petitioner herein. In fact the Petitioner had no knowledge of the same even when the instant writ petitions were filed and the knowledge of the said tapping/transcripts was revealed to the Petitioner only

when the CBI filed the same along with Charge Sheet of Ishrat Jahan murder case..

25.

It is submitted that the conversations were recorded by Shri G.L. Singhal, a senior IPS Officer belonging to the Gujarat Cadre and pertain to the conversations and the instructions issued by Shri Amit Shah, the then Minister of State for Home, Government of Gujarat to Shri Singhal. The relevant part of the transcripts/tapping totally supported the submissions made by the Petitioner in the instant Writ Petition and a mere disclaimer put by the website cannot constitute a ground for this Hon'ble Court to disregard the authenticity of the said transcripts. The Petitioner verily believes that since the transcripts form the basis of the Charge Sheet filed by the agency no less than the CBI, the CBI would have taken adequate steps to verify its authenticity and correctness. In any case, this Honble Court is not required to adjudicate on the correctness or the forensic value such transcripts in the instant proceedings.

RE: COMPLAINT TO POLICE STATION GANDHINAGAR

26.

The instant Crl. M.P. was filed by the Petitioner herein on 23.11.2013 praying for taking on record the documents and transcripts annexed thereto and direct the CBI to

constitute a case for conducting inquiry into the violations of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and other applicable laws by Shri Narendra Modi and Shri Amit Shah or any other person.

27.

The Petitioner filed a complaint before the SHO, P.S. Gandhinagar on 06.01.2014 i.e after filing of the instant Crl. M.P. Evidently the Petitioner could not have annexed a copy of the same and there cannot be an accusation of concealment by any stretch of imagination. The complaint dated 06.01.2014 was for registration of an FIR and submission of information in relation to an cognizable offence, which is the right as well as the duty of the

Petitioner herein and does not in any manner prevent this Hon'ble Court from adjudicating the instant Crl. Misc. Petition.

RE: ROUTINE

INTELLIGENCE

EXERCISE

ON

TWO

MOBILE NUMBERS:-

28.

The State Government in its affidavit under reply has stated that based on certain intelligence inputs in the year 2009 which revealed certain anti-national activities were being carried out from several mobile phone

numbers, it was decided to place two mobile numbers namely xxxxxxxx59 and xxxxxxxx99 of the two private

companies registered in Kutch District of Gujarat, under surveillance. [Pl. see Paragraph 8 of States Reply Affidavit].

29.

That the Reply Affidavit further claims that the procedure as prescribed under the Telegraph Act, 1885 was followed in letter and spirit prior to interception of the calls in these two mobile numbers.

30.

That the reply affidavit further states that the intercepted conversations shockingly reveals that both the numbers were used by the same person i.e., the Petitioner herein and the details of the telephone conversation of the two mobile numbers by the Petitioner reveal shocking facts which can be broadly clarified/summarized as

hereunder:a. Large scale suspicious financial transactions by/at the behest of the applicant to USA which are being probed as potential Hawala transactions b. Amassing of Benami properties by the applicantpetitioner; c. Disproportionate assets acquired by the applicantpetitioner beyond his known source of income; d. Illicit relationship of the applicant-petitioner with several married women containing pornographic

and/or obscene conversations with them which include

applicants subordinate officers, wives of relatives etc. It is clarified that none of the conversations as above involve the lady whose name is mentioned by the applicant-petitioner maliciously. in the memo of petition

31.

The present allegations that are leveled against the Petitioner herein in the said reply affidavit only serves to reveal the extreme degree of hostility, malice and malafide that the state administration harbors against the Petitioner herein at the behest of the Respondent No. 3/Shri Narendra Modi. It is unprecedented for any State Government to level such allegations, of a personal nature, which have no relevance or bearing with the lis in question, against the Petitioner in a matter before this Hon'ble Court.

32.

The reply affidavit does not place on record the so called intelligence inputs regarding the anti-national activity. It also does not reveal the source of these information nor does it reveal any exercise conducted by the State Government to satisfy itself with regards to its authenticity and veracity.

33.

The State Government has deliberately concealed the fact that out of the two private companies which are

stated in Paragraph 8 of the reply affidavit, one is M/s Welspun, which is closely associated with the

Respondent No. 3/ Shri Narendra Modi. The Petitioner has already stated that during his tenure as the District Collector of Kutch, Shri Modi had inaugurated a project of the said M/s Welspun Company in the Kutch district. It is submitted, that if M/s Weslpun was indeed engaged in criminal and anti-national activities, the Reply affidavit should have stated the reasons for the association of the Respondent No. 3/Chief Minister with such alleged antinational Company, and the details as to why such an alleged anti-national company was allotted land in the State of Gujarat. It is also not stated as to why the lands which were allotted to the said company have still not been cancelled and FIRs were registered selectively against the Petitioner herein only.

34.

The State Government has deliberately in its Reply affidavit failed to provide the copies of the following documents: a) b) Inputs received by intelligence agency Letter written by intelligence agency to place the said two telephone numbers under surveillance.

c)

The noting on the file which showed that the Additional Government surveillance. Chief of Secretary, approved Home, such

Gujarat

d)

The authority sent to the Service Provider to place the said numbers under surveillance.

35.

With regards to the aforesaid allegations on the Petitioner that he has indulged in suspicious financial transaction, benami transaction and has acquired disproportionate assets, it has been stated that not a single FIR has been registered either by the State Government or by any other agency despite of incriminating material against the Petitioner being in the possession of the State

Government since the year 2009 as alleged. This only proves that the allegations against the Petitioner are merely an attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Court, cause prejudice and somehow prevent this Hon'ble Court from examining the Crl. M.P. and the accompanying writ petitions on merits.

36.

The Petitioners family consisting of wife, Mrs Shyamal Pradeep Sharma aged 57 years, a daughter Ms. Sujata Sharma aged about 30 years and a son Mr. Prashant Sharma aged about 28 years are settled in the USA for the last 20 years and are reputed professionals in their

own field, and there have been no suspicious transactions between the Petitioner and his family members.

37.

With regards to the alleged mobile conversations of the Petitioner with several married women, as alleged in the reply affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that the transcripts of the mobile conversations have not been delivered to the Petitioner herein and in absence thereof, the Petitioner is unable to respond effectively. In any case, the Petitioner fails to understand as to how the transcripts of the telephonic conversations of the Petitioner with some other person can have any material bearing on the prayers that are sought for in the instant Writ Petition as well as in the instant Crl. M.P.

38.

It is respectfully submitted that the private conversations of the Petitioner with the ladies, as alleged, cannot constitute legal justification for violation of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Rules framed there under and the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court with regards to phone tapping.

39.

It is clear that the State Government has taken this unprecedented step of submitting these private

conversations, in order to prejudice this Honble Court against the Petitioner herein and mislead this Honble

Court and prevent this Honble Court from examining the real issues at hand. By doing so, the State Government has further provided proof of its animosity, hostility and malice against the Petitioner herein which lends credence to the Petitioners well-reasoned belief that he cannot expect to get fair trial under the State Government.

40.

The Reply Affidavit used the words such as pornographic material against the Petitioner herein. However, the said Reply affidavit betrays the basic lack of understanding as what construes Pornographic Material. The very fact that such harsh and unprecedented words have been employed against the Petitioner by the State Government in its reply affidavit is a further proof of the bias and malafide that the State harbors against the Petitioner herein.

41.

It is submitted that the Reply Affidavit is silent as to whether it has even received any complaint from the persons with whom the Petitioner allegedly had these telephonic conversations. The telephonic conversations that the Petitioner had with the ladies as contained in the Reply Affidavit are private conversations which have not only been illegally intercepted but also illegally retained on record in violation of the Telegraph Act and Rules

framed there under to be misused in this fashion subsequently.

42.

The Petitioner has suffered due to systematic malicious propaganda engineered by the State Government at the behest of Shri Narendra Modi to destroy his reputation and career. The Petitioner was constrained to appear on TV channels to clear the wild allegations and aspersions that were leveled by the spokespersons owing allegiance to Shri Narendra Modi and the party which is currently in power in the State of Gujarat i.e., Bharatiya Janata Party (B.J.P.)

RE: LADY ARCHITECT WILLINGLY PLACED HERSELF UNDER SURVEILLANCE:-

43.

The Reply Affidavit states that the father of the said lady Architect, one Shri Pran Lal Soni, himself made a request to the Respondent No. 3/ Mr. Narendra Modi orally somewhere in the year 2009 to take steps in my daughters interest. The Reply Affidavit annexes a letter dated 17.11.2013 written by the said Shri Pran Lal Soni, the father of the said lady Architect to the National Commission for Women and Gujarat State Commission for Women. The contents of the said letter reveal the sheer duplicity of the State Govts claim.

44.

In the said letter Shri Soni claims that he personally made a request to the Chief Minister/Respondent No. 3 in the year 2009 to take steps in his daughters interest due to the personal and family reasons and owing to the fact that Shri Soni has long standing relations spread over two decades with Respondent No.3/Shri Narendra Modi. Assuming without admitting in any manner that such an oral request was indeed made, there is no written record of any such request made by Shri P L Soni to Shri Modi in the State Administration files.

45.

A bare perusal of the letter dated 17.11.2013 does not indicate that Mr. P L Soni had requested or authorized Shri Modi to place his daughters phone under tapping or place his daughter under illegal intrusive surveillance de hors complying with the legal requirements. No nature of threat is identified or stated which would warrant deployment of scores of officers from the ATS and Crime Branch Cell to be employed for her protection.

46.

It is also pertinent to mention that Shri Sonis statement that he knows Respondent No. 3/Shri Narendra Modi for more than two decades is false and misleading, since it was the Petitioner who first introduced the said Lady architect to Shri Modi in 2004, and through her, her parents Shri & Smt. Soni met Shri Modi for the first time

somewhere around in year 2006. The Petitioner requests that the State Govt and/or Shri Modi be put to strict proof to demonstrate that he know or met Shri Soni, let alone have close personal ties with Shri Modi anytime prior to 2004. It is thus, evident that the statement made by Shri Soni is done to protect the interest of his family under duress and extreme pressure from the State Government. It is also pertinent to note that the Lady Architect and her family relocated from Bangalore to Ahmadabad and set up business in Gujarat and were soon awarded with huge Government Projects only after 2008.

47.

The State Government has not annexed any material to show that in pursuance to its self-professed welfare state activity, how many such fathers have made such oral requests to Shri Modi and how many such daughters, on the basis of such oral request by their fathers, are placed under surveillance and are subject to phone tapping by the Anti Terrorist Squad and Crime Branch of the State of Gujarat? Has this ever been done in the State of Gujarat since 2002 or even prior to that? If there is no other such precedent, then what was so unique about the threat faced by the said lady architect which has not been faced by any other lady in the State of Gujarat? The reply affidavit offers no answers to these questions.

48.

The transcripts interestingly also reveal that the lady Architect was ignorant that her telephone was being tapped and that she was being placed under such intrusive surveillance. The entire phone tapping episode of the said lady Architect as well as that of the Petitioner herein is an utter violation of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 as well as the Rules framed there under especially Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Act which have been introduced vide Notification of the Ministry of Communication , Department of

Telecommunication, Government of India dated 16th February, 1999 amending the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 as well as the directives contained in the judgment of this Honble Court in PUCL v. Union of India & Ors (1997) 1 SCC 301. The Petitioner has not reproduced these provisions explicitly in this rejoinder affidavit for the sake of brevity and craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to refer to and rely upon on the said provisions as well as law laid down by this Hon'ble Court at the time of oral arguments.

49.

The Petitioner most respectfully submits that the State of Gujarat has set an unprecedented example which would be difficult to find in India whereby on the oral request by a father of an adult daughter, a lady aged 30 years, the

Chief Minister of State employs the entire state machinery from the Anti Terrorist Squad, CID Crime and the State Police to conduct a full blown intrusive surveillance on the lady in question. The claim of the State Government in its Reply affidavit is rendered false and baseless when the transcripts reveal that Shri Amit Shah, the then MoS, Home instructs Mr. G.L. Singhal, IPS several times to watch the movements of the Petitioner herein, who was then posted as Municipal Commissioner, Bhavnagar, and also to put a watch on a young woman named ********(Lady Architect) from Bhuj.

50.

On instructions of Shri Amit Shah, Shri G.L. Singhal had deputed some men from the Crime Branch (as ATS was short on subordinate staff) to follow the said lady architect, as directed by Shri Amit Shah. The above direction of Shri Amit Shah goes on to prove that it is only after the revelation of the transcripts by Cobrapost and Gulail that the State Government concocted such defence and planned a systematic character assassination of the Petitioner herein.

51.

The State Government in its reply in Paragraph 10(d) makes an averment that none of the

transcripts/conversation bears mention to the said lady architect, which is a false and incorrect statement, in

contradiction to the submission made in Paragraph 15 of the Crl M.P. under reply, wherein the following

conversation has transpired between Shri Amit Shah and Shri G.L. Singhal is as hereunder:Amit Shah: That man had gone from Bhavnagar to
Mumbai and is back here. In connection with the matter G.L. Singhal: Ok Sir Amit Shah: we are watching him also G.L. Singhal: yes yes Amit Shah: so today deploy 8 to 10 men firstly, that man is going to stay at Kuldips house.therethen he has called a Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation car. G.L. Singhal: yes yes yes Amit Shah: And the Mansi matterkeep a watch the whole night G.L. Singhal: right Amit Shah: call for men G.L. Singhal: yes yes yes Amit Shah: As he will stay here for a day or two and try to being with his tactics G.L. Singhal: right.. Amit Shah: I have heard their conversation and know the nature of their relationship G.L. Singhal: yes yes yes Amit Shah: Get more men or some of your confidants G.L. Singhal: Sir I have called two three men from the crime dept Amit Shah: two three IB men to watch the other side G.L. Singhal: yes yes sir Amit Shah: And some IB men to intercept calls in the night are to be posted inside G.L. Singhal: yes yes sir (Emphasis supplied)

52.

It is further most respectfully submitted that the State Government is also in possession of the telephonic conversations from the said two mobile phone numbers i.e. xxxxxxxx59 & xxxxxxxx99 of the Petitioner with the

said lady Architect. However, the reply affidavit conceals any such conversation between the Petitioner and the Lady architect, whereas it has displayed no such inhibition in submitting telephonic conversations of the Petitioner with other women in the Reply Affidavit.

RE: KULDIP SHARMA, IPS:53. The Reply Affidavit under reply further states that Shri Kuldip Sharma, IPS, who is the elder brother of the Petitioner herein, was given Central Government

deputation despite lack of clearance from the State Government. The very fact that the Reply Affidavit refers to Shri Kuldeep Sharma only substantiates one of the two original grievances of the Petitioner in the Writ Petition that the State Government is hostile and prejudiced towards the Petitioner because of the fact that he is younger brother of Shri Kuldeep Sharma.

54.

That the double standard and hypocrisy of the State Government is clearly borne out when in one hand several Charge Sheeted officers are given promotions and on the other hand Charge Sheet and cases are used as tools for victimization of Officers like the Petitioner and his brother Shri Kuldip Sharma who had refused to obey the illegal diktats issued by Shri Modi and Shri Amit Shah. The chart, which is excerpted herein below reveals a

group of Charge Sheeted Officers who have seemingly prospered in the State of Gujarat and have not been faced any punitive action unlike the Petitioner and his brother:S. Name with Contents No. post 1. O.P. Mathur, ADGP, he IPS (Retd.) served Chargesheet moral Remarks was Charge sheet

with dropped and Mr. for O.P. Mathur was

turpitude promoted to the of DGP.

where Shri O P rank Mathur allegedly had After

retirement, DG Shakti

appointed

threatened a lady Raksha with his service University.

revolver and asked to succumb to his indecent and vulgar demands. State The

Government

had concluded that this amounted to and

disgraceful unbecoming conduct. 2. Mr. Pandey,

P.C. Charge sheeted by Continues to be the CBI for the cold Chairman of the State Housing a

former DGP, blooded murder of Gujarat Gujarat Tulsi Prajapati Police

Corporation,

post given to him

after retirement 3. Smt. Geeta Charge sheeted by Not suspended the CBI for the cold blooded murder of Tulsi Prajapati 4. O.P. Mathur, Charge sheeted by Continues to be IPS (Retd.) the CBI for the cold DG of Raksha

Johri-IPS (Retd.)

blooded murder of Shakti University. Tulsi Prajapati 5. Amit Shah, 1) Arrested and In brazen of by

then Minister charge sheeted for disregard of State for the Home. murder of investigation

Sohrabuddin Kausar Bi. 2) Again

and the CBI and its finding, the Chief charge Minister to

sheeted for the cold continues

blooded murder of flaunt him and is Tulsi Prajapati given prominence within the political party also. 6. Harit Shukla, Named IAS, Collector, Kutch then Charge case along Petitioner identical misconduct in sheet the At first he was in not arrested and his name from as

No.

9/2010 then

with withdrawn for prosecution alleged this was target

deponent the only though

Shri Shuka had acted similarly in the was matter, he

spared as

there

was

no

personal animosity of Shri Modi with Shri

Shukla. 7. S.S. Convicted for 5 Appointed on that DGP the he

Khandvawala years imprisonment Gujarat , DGP. Former by Sessions Junagarh Order 30.09.2009 Additional pretext

Judge, had obtained an vide interim relief from dated the Honble High in Court.

Sessions Case No. 76/1982 offences for under

Section 365, 348, 352 & 331, IPC.

55.

SHRI

NARENDRA

MODIS

RELIANCE

MOBILE

NUMBER :- It is most respectfully submitted that while one of the FIRs pertaining to the Petitioner herein, contains allegation for mis-using the mobile number xxxxxxxx99 which belongs to a private company i.e., M/s Welspun. However, the State Government has chosen not to act against Respondent No. 3 who used another mobile number bearing no. 9909923400. It is submitted that this number was owned by Reliance Industries Limited and the address given to the Service Provider was Vraj, Opp. HDFC Bank, Beside Chandanbala

Tower,

Near

Suvidha

Shopping

Centre,

Paldi,

Ahmedabad-380007.

The telephone in question was

activated on 29.06.2007 and de-activated on 08.03.2011 and was in use during the relevant period of 2009. This is a clear case of discrimination and malafide against the Petitioner and an abuse of the official position by the Respondent No. 3 to settle the personal grievance against the Petitioner herein.

56.

The Petitioner respectfully submits that the lady architect was regularly in touch with the Petitioner and shared details of the conversations she was having with Respondent No. 3, and it was at the behest of Respondent No. 3 that she visited the Petitioner in Bhavnagar to explore possibilities to start a new State funded project as promised to her by Respondent No. 3. It was only after this clarification put forth by the Petitioner that the State changed its stance and came up with an explanation of financial transactions and issue of moral conduct to justify its unlawful acts.

57.

That the Petitioner herein is a witness to the text messages (SMS) exchanged between the lady architect and Respondent No. 3 and it was through this exchange that the Petitioner noted the details of the phone no. 9909923400 which is in fact registered in the name of

Reliance Industries, and was being used by Respondent No. 3 for his own personal use.

RE: COMMISSION OF INQUIRY: 58. It is respectfully submitted that the State Government has apparently constituted a Commission of Inquiry

(hereinafter COI) headed by Honble Justice (Retd.) Ms. Sugnyaben K. Bhatt and Shri K.C. Kapoor, IAS (Retd.) to inquire into the illegal telephonic tapping and surveillance. At the outset it is most respectfully submitted that the constitution of COI is a mere attempt of the State Government to prevent this Honble Court from

adjudicating upon the facts bought on record by the Crl MP under reply, since till date the COI has not gone into the details of the allegations as such. Moreover, it is pertinent to point out that on one hand the State Government debunks the transcripts filed by the

Petitioner in the instant CRL MP on the other hand constitutes COI to enquire into the same. The very fact that the State Government has now constituted COI shows that there is sufficient material on record which reveals the basis for a reasonable apprehension against the State Government that the Petitioner will not get a free and fair trial. The CoI cannot be expected to probe in an independent and impartial manner and indict those

who have constituted the COI itself. Furthermore, the constitution of COI does not constitute a legal and factual bar for this Hon'ble Court to entertain and allow the instant Writ Petition as well as Crl. Misc. Petition.

PARAWISE REPLY ON MERITS: 59. That the Petitioner herein denies all and singular averments made by the State Government in the affidavit under reply and relies on the submissions made herein above in Preliminary submissions as response to the same and seeks liberty of this Honble Court to refer and rely on the same.

60.

It is further respectfully submitted that the contents in the instant Reply affidavit were in the domain of the State Governments knowledge even on 20.09.2011 i.e., the date on which the State Government filed its Counter Affidavit to the accompanying writ petition. However, not a whisper of the allegations that are contained in the Reply Affidavit under reply herein dated 01.04.2014 were mentioned in the Counter Affidavit filed by the State Government to the Writ Petition earlier. This shows that the contents of the instant Reply Affidavit under reply are merely an afterthought

IN THE PREMISES OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT:

a)

Allow the prayers as sought for in the instant Crl. Misc. Petition as well as in the Writ Petition;

b)

Reject the contents of the Reply Affidavit dated 01.04.2014 filed by the State Government especially the personal allegations leveled against the Petitioner as contained in sealed cover;

c)

Initiate appropriate action against the concerned Officers of the State Government for violation of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Rules framed thereunder and judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court as well as a deliberate attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Court by filing the reply affidavit;

d)

Direct the State Government to produce all records pertaining to phone tapping and surveillance of the Petitioner and the Lady Architect;

e)

Order an inquiry by an independent agency into the usage, Call Data Records and telephonic transcripts of the Reliance Mobile number 9909923400 used by Shri Narendra Modi with the said Lady Architect and ;

f)

and any further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances involved in this case.

Drawn & Filed by

(SUNIL FERNANDES) Advocate for the Petitioner New Delhi Dated: 11.04.2014