Professional Documents
Culture Documents
/2
/3
/4
/5
VOLUME II
/1
/2
/3
/4
/5
/6
/7
3
/1
/2
/1
/2
(definitely not a PIL)
no public prosecutor
at the criminal trial
non appointment
of Section 31 prosecutor
VOLUME IV
5
/26
/27
11
/33
/34
/35 /1
/35 /2
/35 /3
/36
/37
12
/42 017
/43
147
/44
/45
/46
10.2015 in W.P. (Crl.) 588/
13
/47 /1
/47 /2
/48
/49
/50
VOLUME V
VOLUME VI
14
/1
/2
/3
/1/6 /1/7
/1/8
/2
/3
/4
/5
/6
/7
17
VOLUME VIII
/19
(Court of Record has misplaced its Record)
VOLUME IX
/1
19
22
VOLUME XVI
26
VOLUME XVII
27
-::;1.~
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 26.01.2021 Petitioner-in-person
Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden I, Sector 47 Gurugram-122018,
Mob.No.9818768349
Email: manioberoi@gmail.com
28
Continued in VolumeII
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 26.01.2021 = wh.
Petitioner-in-person
Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden I, Sector 47 Gurugram-122018,
Mob.No. 9818768349
Email: manioberoi@gmail.com
30
Sir,
Pleasefind enclosed herewith the copy of Writ Petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for ex-parte stay
and the issue of a Writ of mandamus, quo warranto or any other
Writ, orderor direction to Respondents concerned. Thesaid matter
is likely to comeup on 09.02.2021 or such other date as convenient
to the Registry of the Hon’ble High Court.
[AB] Mr. Anil Kumar Bakshi (Advocate) 243, RPS,Flats, Sheikh Sarai
I, New Delhi 110017 Mob:9667300533 Email:
anilbakshilegal@gmail.com [W.P. (Civil) No. 7438 of 2000]
33
[AG] Mr. Anil Grover (Sr. Addl. Advocate General, Haryana) A-174,
2nd Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi 110024 Mob: 9811089646
Email: groveradvocate@gmail.com [R-9]
[JSS] Mr. J.S. Sandhu (Advocate) L-253, Vijay Rattan Vihar, Sector 15
Part-II, Gurugram 122001 Mob: 9818188475 Email:
ltcoljssandhu@gmail.com [Ld. Counsel in W.P. (Crl.) 588/2013]
[KKV] Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Attorney General for India, A-144, Neeti
Bagh, New Delhi, 110049 Email: kkvenu@outlook.in
[RM] Mr Rahul Mehra Sr. Standing Counsel, 422, Lawyers Chambers, Delhi High
Court, New Delhi110001 Mob: 9810083100 Email: mehraandco@gmail.com [R-1]
34
35
36
37
38
39
VERSUS
5. The High Court of Delhi, Sher Shah Road New Delhi 110003,
through its Registrar General Fax:+91-11-23073485 Email:
rg.dhc@nic.in saud@ahmadsyed.com Mob:9910013800
RESPONDENTNO.5
6. The Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs,
Governmentof India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110011, Fax:
+91-11-23061459 secyurban@nic.in Mob:9811704188
Email:maninderkaur_adv@yahoo.co.in RESPONDENT NO.6
7.The Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan
INA Colony, New Delhi 110023, Fax:+91-11-230122874 Email:
vedda@dda.org.in avermadelhi@gmail.com Mob: 9811032001
ajverma@ndf.vsnl.net.in RESPONDENTNO. 7
8. Armed Forces Tribunal (Principal Bench) throughits Principal
Registrar, West Block VIII, Opp. Mohan Singh Market, Sector I,
R. K. Puram, New Delhi 110066, Fax: +91-11- 26105361 Email:
aftdelhi@yahoo.in chetansharmamailbox@yahoo.com
RESPONDENTNO. 8
9. Sh. Dinesh Kumar S.H.O, Police Station, Sadar, Sector 38,
Gurugram, 122018, Mob:9999981825, Email: shoggnsdr-
hry@nic.in groveradvocate@gmail.com Mob: 9811089646
baldevmahajan@rediff.com RESPONDENTNO.9
10. The National Human Rights Commission, through its
Secretary General, National Human Rights Commission, Manav
Adhikar Bhawan Block-C, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi
110023 Fax: +91-11-24651329 Email:
sgnhre@nic.in chetansharmamailbox@yahoo.com
RESPONDENTNO. 10
SYNOPSIS
259 dt. 24.11.2020, Govt. of the NCT of Delhi, N.C.T.D. No. 209
of Human Rights Act, 1993 (Central Act No. 10 of 1994, 1993 Act
expectations.”
they will not cease to remember that counsel for the prosecution
offences:
court; or
by a Public Prosecutor.”
trial.
one and only case ever filed before any Human Rights Court of
other than cognizable offences. That has always been the public
11. That the short ground for quashing said notification is that it is
284.12:
“In the light of the ruling of the nine judge bench in NDMC,
Lieutenant Governor. ”
cases, under the 1993 Act, in the statutory courts/ tribunals and the
about ten years. That the Petitioner has failed, not because of lack
do good that the Constitution has favoured upon it, this is a fit case
where it can eclipse the odd recalcitrant State Government and its
“organs”.
47
13. That all respondents, except Respondent No. 9, are to sue and
Cabinet owes a duty towards the legislature for every action taken
violation for last 27 year’s failure is only of Union of India for its
held “3. The moral may be stated with telling terseness in the
Benjamin Disraeli:
exercise that, from the people and for the people, all springs, and
duty towards the legislature for every action taken in any of the
act of the Ministry. That the executive control under the 1993 Act,
17. That Petitioner, under Article 51-A, is duty bound to move this
14, 19, 21, 51, 53, 73(1)(b), 141, 154, 162, 239-AA, 246 and 253
treaty on agreement:
make laws
51
Parliament has power to make laws for that State such executive
executive power of the Union in any part of the said Act. That even
52
Courts, enjoying full powers under Lists I, II & III, Petitioner relies
in the first schedule to this Act, it shall not be deemed to have been
any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special
53
20. It is well settled that the special shall overrule the general. That
and a general enactment in the same statute, and the latter, taken
enactment must be taken to affect only the other parts of the statute
that the specific provision is carved out from the application of the
the right to move the Board constituted under the Order to initiate
5(a). The Court held that Clause 23 was made with a definite
Court held:
between the general provision in one Act and the special provision
of men and women that when the same person gives two directions
should prevail as regards these while as regards all the rest the
general provision applies only to such cases which are not covered
applicable.”
situations.
Tax under Entry 4 in Annexure ‘C’ of the Sales Tax New Incentive
that the special words were not meant to be included in the general
special law dealing with some aspect dealt with by the general law
derogant…”
21. That for 27 years the State (Article 12 definition) and its organs
rights…”
Rights Act, 1993 r/w Sec 2 (d): “(d) “human rights” means the
141, 154, 162, 226, 239-AA and 253 of the Constitution of India
12(c), 14(1)*, 17(i)*, 20*, 21(1), 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, and
Sections 12(c), 21(1), 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, and 35 are excluded
of Sections 14(1)*, 17(i)*, 20* and 38* which empower both the
Act.
25. That it is clear as noon day that the words “State” in Sections
22(1) and Section 24(3) are relatable to Entry 45 List III and not
62
India, 1949.
that the spirit of the Constitution has its own signification. In the
not result in an illogical outcome which could have never been the
subsequent stage.
under:
conclusions in seriatim:
the safe and most sound approach for the constitutional courts to
and shaping policies which are reflective of the popular will. The
284.4. All the three organs of the State must remain true to
the process by which such decisions are taken must have normative
Cabinet owes a duty towards the legislature for every action taken
and the State Governments alike with the aim to have a holistic
edifice. Thus, the Union and the State Governments must embrace
federal structure mandates that the Union does not usurp all
as the best tool. In spite of diverse views on the said concept, what
the true and ultimate purpose of the Constitution not only in letter
but also in spirit and armed with the tools of ingenuity and
creativity, must not shy away from performing this foremost duty
not be lost in grammar and the popular will of the people which
Delhi is sui generis, a class apart, and the status of the Lieutenant
which shall have legislative powers over matters falling within the
State List and the Concurrent List, barring those excepted, and a
AA(3)(a) reveals that Parliament has the power to make laws for
enumerated in the State List and the Concurrent List. At the same
time, the Legislative Assembly of Delhi also has the power to make
laws over all those subjects which figure in the Concurrent List
in the Concurrent List and all, but three excluded subjects, in the
Parliament.
the three matters in the State List in respect of which the power of
Constitution.
73
proviso represents the exception and not the general Rule which
and objectivity and the nurtured and cultivated idea of respect for
President.
and must not seek to resist them at every step of the way. The need
of the GNCTD Act, 1991 and the corresponding the 1993 TBR
head, shall be kept informed with respect to all the decisions taken
Governor but this does not mean that the concurrence of the
authorities should feel that they have been lionised. They should
feel that they are serving the constitutional norms, values and
concepts.
Entry 94 List I
xxxx
apparent that the outcome of this issue hinges upon the meaning
purpose, one will have to fall back on the GC Act. Section 3(8) of
thereof is as under:
(a) ...
include-
(i) ...
(ii) ...
(a) ...
79
(b) ...
well:
3(58) "State"-
(a) ...
Government.”
xxxx
Territory.
notification dated August 11, 2015 which is passed under the COI
81
Act. We, therefore, uphold the judgment of the High Court on this
aspect.”
31. That as regards Issue No. 3 which is most relevant for this case
A.K. Sikri on five out of the six issues, differing only on issue No.
is also not concerned with Issue No. 2 and Issues No. 4 to No.6.
32. That it is in the knowledge of the petitioner that there are two
matters (C. A. No. 7968/2019 & W.P. (Crl.) 819/2019) which are
1993. That the said orders are in SMW (Crl.) No. 1/2019,
13.08.2019
xxxx
States...."
filed their responses despite period of one year six months having
elapsed.
of Rs.1 lakh are imposed on it and was also granted four weeks
The High Court of Calcutta has not filed its reply. The reply
List on 04.10.2019.
03.09.2019.
Though notice has been issued, the States need not file
13.01.2020
prosecutors for such human rights courts shall be dealt with in this
and the Dr. Rajesh Kumar, ADGP, CID, West Bengal (respondent
17.01.2020
Courts will not be taken in this Suo Moto Writ Petition and this
petition will deal only with exclusive POCSO Courts. The issue of
85
27.08.2020
& Ors.
attention of this Court for last few years and various orders have
been passed by this Court from time to time. The last effective
the application.
10 of the application.
observed:-
an Executive Magistrate.”
some length.
‘Suhas Chakma vs. Union of India & Ors.’; and that the matter is
vs. Jat Ram & Ors.], the issues regarding strength of members of
34. That, the Petitioner gets a sinking feeling that only because of
Bengal & Ors, (2015) 8 SCC 744, it was noted at para 23 at SCC
p.765.
reiterate its view that the 'better protection of human rights' can
16.3 The first such annual meeting was held on the 30-01-
forward the initiative, the second meeting was convened on the 13-
Resolution:
remind the Governments, both, at the Centre and in the States, that
that of the State and that the national human rights institutions are
all the more important that all the states expeditiously set up
36. Taking note in Shri Dilip K. Basu v. State of West Bengal &
Ors, (2015) 8 SCC 744 of the Joint Meeting of the Human Rights
Court, further down on the same page, also took a note of this 13-
38. That in Shri Dilip K. Basu v. State of West Bengal & Ors,
can and ought to do is to take up the matter with the Chief Justices
raised for the very first time in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Protection of Child Rights and Ors. vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors.,
16:
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (for short, 'the 1993 Act').
Section 30 of the 1993 Act deals with Human Rights Courts. The
offences:
court; or
under:
Court.
States.”
because:
of India) “Though notice has been issued, the States need not file
is otiose.
WBCPCR are concerned. We, however, make it clear that the issue
public prosecutors for such human rights courts shall be dealt with
NCPCR and the Dr. Rajesh Kumar, ADGP, CID, West Bengal
98
accordingly.”
Basu) but none of these matters appear to concern the vital issue
(b) at p.289: “It cannot, however, be said that the rule of literal
method for doing a thing and has left no ‘abeyance’ or gap, if the
99
objection and criticism (Note 72:AIR 1994 SC 268 at AIR p.383, p.421,
p.442, p.454, 1996 MPLJ (Jour) 24 at MPLJ p.29, (1998) 7 SCC 739, (2009)
1 SCC 657, (2005) 2 SCC 104 overruling AIR 1996 SC 1308, AIR 2005 SC
because the Legislature rightly did not use the term “State
because the Legislature rightly did not use the term “State
Law dictates that this task is best left to any independent Article
1 SCC 405 at SCC p.421 para 16, Hon’ble Justice Krishna Iyer
non-action may boomerang, for the court and the law are
inquiring into cases where a party has been denied the protection
particular law, and benefits under that law have been denied to
that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right
provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the
104
oriented perspective….”
would be independent and hence are not strictly bound by the rules
of previous sanction. That this is all the more reason that the
Article 76(2). That if, in the opinion of the prosecutor there arises
held up, merely by any delay because this Special Act speaks of
the 1993 Act because of the exclusion clause of Entry 1 List III the
or air forces or any other armed forces of the Union in aid of the
civil power.”
107
LIST OF DATES
AD P-34 PART I/ 2)
PART I/ 6)
P-34 PART I/ 7)
Year 1852 Map Central Asia before the Russian Conquest, 1852 at p.xxv
PART I/ 8)
108
2(COLLY) /4
PART I/ 11)
Great Britain and China [Tibetan Present Did not sign] 1893
I/ 15)
14.09.1897 Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, ILR 1898 (22) Bom
03.07.1914 Convention Great Britain China and Tibet with 2 maps, 1914
PART I/ 26)
PART I/ 29)
Year 1919 Tibet and Adjacent Countries, Survey of India Map, 1919
31)
PART II/ 6)
1947-1967 October 1967 CIA Map No. 54935 10-67 showing Ethno-
PART I/ 32)
27.10.1947 June 1991 CIA Map No. 801746 (B01313) 6-91 showing the
put paid to his career in the Indian Army. That this blame
1988. That for this blame he was given the award of “Severe
his best efforts have so far failed to resolve simply because the
(ANNEXURE P-4(COLLY))
(ANNEXURE P-5)
01.01.2003 Extracts from United Nations Human Rights Manual No. 9 for
PART IV/ 5/ 2)
117
PART IV/ 7)
P-34 PART V/ 4)
34 PART V/ 5)
PART V/ 6)
29.10.2018 Summary. Air pollution and child health: prescribing clean air.
VI/ 1)
(ANNEXURE P-24)
Year 2019 Sinkiang China in the India Office Records Three Case Studies
PART VI/ 5)
James.H.Butler@noaa.gov Stephen.A.Montzka@noaa.gov ]
P-27(COLLY))
125
issues in the same court for which all cases must proceed
Station, Sadar, Sector 38, Gurugram till filing of affidavit in this writ
VII/ 6)
Law – All Are Equal Before Law & Epistles Dated 17.06.2019
<cpgrams-darpg@nic.in> to <manioberoi@gmail.com> on
(COLLY))
24.11.2020 Delhi Gazette. Pt. IV No. 259 dt. 24.11.2020, Govt. of the NCT
(ANNEXURE P-1)
Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi, aged 72 yrs, s/o late Capt H.S. Oberoi,
PETITIONER
VERSUS
India, 4th Floor ‘A’ Wing, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi 110001
Fax:91-11-23384403 Email:secylaw-dla@nic.in
Mob:9810015886 bansal_subhash@yahoo.com
RESPONDENT NO. 4
5. The High Court of Delhi, Sher Shah Road New Delhi 110003,
RESPONDENT NO. 5
aftdelhi@yahoo.in chetansharmamailbox@yahoo.com
RESPONDENT NO. 8
sgnhrc@nic.in chetansharmamailbox@yahoo.com
RESPONDENT NO. 10
TO,
petitioner may properly and justly apply in said HRC for full and
India, 1949.
138
below.
4500 pages long petition [basis more than 700 national and
have failed to honour the assurance held out before this Hon’ble
tenure during the period 1989 to 1995, essential for him to become
by his peers with lesser merit in the Year 1996. The stress and
tension caused to petitioner and his wife during the entire period
who dared approach the writ courts repeatedly, went to the extent
that he could not personally pursue his writ matter in Delhi, and
Itarsi, nearest medical facility being 100 kms away at Bhopal. That
after the petitioner moved to Itarsi and obtained NOC since family
the Principal of the Vasant Valley School in Delhi for many years
long years, bravely continuing her professional work nearly till the
of the Indian Army at the hands of the Union of India. That only
of accident was that the round which burst in the barrel was fired
complaint under section 27 of the Army Act. The same was rejected
under Section 27 of the Army Act. The same was also rejected. His
apprehension was that the censure must have weighed with No. 3
and December, 1988, January to July 1990. But petitioner was not
[ANNEXURE P-29(COLLY)1/ 1]
December 1988 (2) SB No. 3 First Review 1968 Batch i.e. January
1990 & (3) SB No. 3 Second Review 1968 Batch i.e. July 1990.
1968 Batch i.e. November and December 1988. In fact till today
this Board (SB No. 3. Fresh 1968 Batch) has never been convened
petitioner could not get justice till today. The Union of India is
merit to more than half the officers who were cleared from the
November and December 1988. That in any case the Tribunal was
the Ministry of Defence and also to this Hon’ble Court by Mr. P.N.
Mishra, Sr. Counsel appearing for the Union of India that officer’s
[ANNEXURE P-29(COLLY)1/5].
23(COLLY)/ 46,
(e) 20.05.2011 (Other High Court Matter: Cr. Misc. No. 200/2011
India. The fate of these cases is now in the hands of God and
COVID-19:
person; and that the judges are but the delegates of the king,
and that the king may take what causes he shall please to
me that true it was that God had endowed his majesty with
law was the golden metwand and measure to try the causes
non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege." (That the
king ought not to be under man, but under God and the
law.)”
petitioner for lone silent protest outside the premises of P.S. Sadar,
(i) 19.05.2018 (Other High Court matter: costs upon 340 CrPC
back per contra Lal Singh Kang v. Union of India 1959 CriLJ 644
P-20(COLLY) /2 at pp.670-673
(m) 10.07.2019 (costs upon 340 CrPC informant per contra The
Crown v. Pir Qadir Bakhsh Shah, (1925) ILR 6 Lah 34 & Rup
Narain v. Maha Dayal, AIR 1914 Lah 576, 18.12.1914 (from order
the back per contra Lal Singh Kang v. Union of India 1959 CriLJ 644
under Article 226, and he is bound to seek full and effective relief
Delhi Gazette. Pt. IV No. 259 dt. 24.11.2020, Govt. of the NCT of
at ANNEXURE P-1.
153
statistics for the purpose of any of the matters in this List) and
honour how would the honour, safety and welfare of the men who
this sensitive matter on behalf of all the organs of State Power who
in this writ petition. That the case of Respondent No. 9 has a twist
in the tale and requires much greater detailing (in paras 26-30
below) only after which the dire need to implead this otherwise
most unlikely respondent shall emerge crystal clear; but first, the
courts, the special courts and also tribunals as also the courts of
about 25 years. That the Petitioner has failed, not because of lack
No. 539/1986 Shri Dilip K. Basu v. State of West Bengal & Ors.,
ANNEXURE P-35/1
11. That for 27 long years from 28.09.1993 the State has resolutely
empty vessels of words, used in P.H.R.A, with the sole object of the
157
162. There is, to be sure, one condition that must exist in order to
as noon day”] that every citizen of India has been denied access
property”.
Hon’ble Court under Articles 226 & 227, for which request or
voluminous facts and law from across the Globe, the petitioner
has taken more than a month of day and night work to proof read
and fact check this over four and a half thousand page writ which,
20. That it is the Rule of Law (which is well settled) that a Court
the pleasure of the “State” and draw salary at the pleasure of the
“State”. See Paris Principles B.2 & B.3 at ANNEXURE P-6 and
preambular paragraph).”
That the said Court cannot step into the arena as both a judge and
performance of duty.”
(iv) All the three organs of the State must remain true to the
which required at the least that the matter not be brushed under the
been preferred by a Judge of the High Court, but there can be little
merits; and that the decision of the case shall depend entirely upon
contention is the fact that at the first hearing of the matter, after
Letters Patent Appeal it is not the lis of the whistleblower but the
institutions and Articles 228, 246, 50, 141 & 235 of the
Assn v. R.K.Jain 2010 (8) SCC 281 & Common Cause v. Union
of the NHRC are not placed before Parliament for 4 to 5 years after
India.
170
26. That, apropos para 9 above, it is time now to find the necessity
law..... The sine qua non for an action under Section 82 is the
report before the Magistrate that the person against whom the
Cr.P.C. has been effected, then where was the question for the trial
court for recording the statement of the process server so, that the
28. That the facts relevant in this Hon’ble Court have already been
NDOH: 09.02.2021)”
29. That the email to all high authorities including this Hon’ble
incidentally was met with stoic silence i.e., zilch response from
freedoms man lives for, to every Indian Citizen who thinks he has
escaped from the tyranny of British Raj aka Queen Empress v. Bal
lokpal.chairperson@gov.in, lokpal.pinakighose@gov.in,
<cp.ggn@hry.nic.in>, cp.amulyapatnaik@delhipolice.gov.in,
which magistrate has jurisdiction (in this case New Delhi District)
family members were home only the one illiterate house maid
impression on a paper which she could not read. No bond has been
(attached)
his 2 policemen and the 2 Delhi Police persons walked away with
the TV and were at P.S. Sadar Gurugram till 6.10 PM. No attempt
was made by SHO or Addl SHO to stop this gross illegal charade.
prosecute the SHO/ Addl SHO/ IO and others concerned under the
offences committed under IPC Sections 166 & 441 IPC during 3
offence)
30. That the petitioner’s allegation against SHO, Sadar, Sector 38,
in Ganu Shukul and Ors. v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Pat 347, 123 Ind.
notified in the 1993 Act at sub-sections (d) & (f) of Section 2. That
MM-02, PHC, New Delhi not valid in Gurugam without the seal
there can ever be any defence to this collusion with Delhi Police
to subvert the Rule of Law, but the SHO, Sadar, Gurugram should
AIR 1930 Pat 347, 123 Ind. Cas. 397 "Stewart Macpherson , J.
AIR 1963 SC 692, 1963 (2) AnWR 69, [1963] Supp (1) SC R 40,
instant case in less than forty eight hours Court was satisfied that
SC 3346, 2000 (2) ALD(C ri) 115, 2000 CriLJ 4592, (2000) 4
GLR 823, JT 2000 (7) SC 246, 2000 (2) RCR(Criminal) 863, 2000
MANU/AP/ 0026/2007, 2007 (1) ALD (Cri) 845, 2007 (2) ALT
(9) Rohit Kumar alias Raju v. State of NCT Delhi, 2007 (98) DRJ
law..... The sine qua non for an action under Section 82 is the
report before the Magistrate that the person against whom the
Cr.P.C. has been effected, then where was the question for the trial
178
court for recording the statement of the process server so, that the
31. GROUNDS
A. THAT the Delhi Gazette. Pt. IV No. 259 dt. 24.11.2020, Govt.
of India suffers from fatal defect of not having the seal of the
President of India.
73(1)(b),
quashing being contrary to the law laid down by the Nine judges
evidence, they will not cease to remember that counsel for the
1949 read with sub-section (d) & (f) of section 2 of Central Act
Constitution of India.
further proceedings.
more than sufficient to stay the trial in Case CRN No. DLND01-
which the same had been enacted. We, however, found that certain
the whole or part of it form the officers), who are found guilty and
trust and hope that the Union Government will very soon bring
183
1985 SC 416, [1985] 2 SCR 621, (1985) 1 SCC 552, the Hon’ble
such situations and when they choose to speak, they put their own
gloss upon facts and pervert the truth. The result is that persons,
184
prove who the offenders are. The law as to the burden of proof in
113th Report; at para 5.2 it advised the Law Minister of India of its
evidence that the injury was caused during a period when that
person was in the custody of the police, the court may presume
that the injury was caused by the police officer having custody of
that person during that period. (2) The court, in deciding whether
practitioner who might have examined the victim, and (d) evidence
4 SCC 262 it was recommended “In its 4th Report of June, 1980,
regret that the police image in the estimation of the public has
varying degrees over the past several years and noted with
and 331 of the Indian Penal Code make punishable those persons
been very few because the atrocities within the precincts of the
police station are often left without any ocular or other direct
is evidence that the injury was caused during the period when the
187
person was in the police custody, the Court may presume that the
injury was caused by the police officer having the custody of that
person during that period unless, the police officer proves to the
growing rise in the crimes of this type, where only a few come to
changes in the law not only to curb the custodial crime but also to
416 it was held “It needs no emphasis to say that when the crime
suffers. The victim of crime or his kith and kin become frustrated
injury to a person, if there was evidence that the injury was caused
during the period when the person was in the custody of the police,
the Court may presume that the injury was caused by the police
officer having the custody of that person during that period. The
made by the victim, medical evidence and the evidence which the
also expressed the hope that the Government and the legislature
and death in custody, justifies the urgency for the amendment and
R. THAT the time has come that people of India want to know
S. THAT in case the Government does not agree with the Hon’ble
checked.
1949 read with sub-section (d) & (f) of section 2 of Central Act
that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right
provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the
DECLARATION
32. That no other writ or other petition seeking the remedy herein
sought for NCT of Delhi has been filed in this Hon’ble Court or in
PRAYER
223298) and/or;
(d) & (f) of section 2 of Central Act No. 10 of 1994 within a period
District & Sessions Judge, as may bein the wisdom ofthis Hon’ble
Court and/or;
case before the Human Rights Court in each of the eleven district
1949 read with sub-section (d) & (f) of section 2 of Central Act
V. Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
TO,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES,
OF DELHI HIGH COURT, AT NEW DELHI
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF
THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The writ petition of this petitioner seeks stay on the
notification by way of writ of quo warranto, and raises challenge
to notification dt.24.11.2020 issued by Lieutenant Governor of
Union Territory of Delhi in exercise of powers of Hon’ble Chief
Justice of the High Court of Delhi under Article 233(1)/ 236(a) of
the Constitution of India.
2. That said notification suffers fatal defect of not having the
seal of the President of India or a competent lawfully notified
authority, which the Constitution Bench, on 04.07.2018, held
“clear as noon day is not the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
3. That the petitioner is likely to succeed in the writ petition
and hence Order of Stay of operation of the notification shall be in
the interests of Justice till suitable provision is made to appoint
199
both the prosecutor under the Paris Principles and the properly
notified court having the seal of the President of India as held by
the Constitution Bench on 04.07.2018.
4. That the facts of the case have beenfully set out in the Writ
Petition. It is submitted that the facts stated in the Writ Petition
maybetreated as part of this Application and the same are not
reproduced herein for the sake ofbrevity.
5. That ex-parte stay of the notification dated 24.11.2020 may be
grantedas it would alsobein the interests ofjustice..
PRAYER
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may bepleased to:
(a) grant ex-parte stay ofthe notification dated 24.11.2020 and
/or
(b) Pass any otherorder(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
andproperin the interest ofjustice.
AND FORTHIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS
IN DUTY BOUND SHALLEVERPRAY.
Place: New Delhi <|
Dated: 21.12.2020 wh
Petitioner-in-person
Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden I, Sector 47 Gurugram-122018,
Mob. No. 9818768349
Email: manioberoi@gmail.com
200
201
202
TO,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES,
OF DELHI HIGH COURT, AT NEW DELHI
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF
THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The writ petition of this petitioner seeks stay on the
notification by way of writ of quo warranto, and raises challenge
to notification dt.24.11.2020 issued by Lieutenant Governor of
Union Territory of Delhi in exercise of powers of Hon’ble Chief
Justice of the High Court of Delhi under Article 233(1)/ 236(a) of
the Constitution of India.
2 That the facts of the case have been fully set out in the Writ
Petition. It is submitted that the facts stated in the Writ Petition
may be treated as part of this Application and the same are not
reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
203
PRAYER
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may bepleasedto:
(a) Exempt the Petitioner from filing the Certified copy of
Annexure P-1 to P-35; and/or
(b) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and properin the interest ofjustice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS
IN DUTY BOUNDSHALL EVERPRAY.
Place: New Delhi <a
Dated: 21.12.2020 wh
Petitioner-in-person
Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden I, Sector 47 Gurugram-122018,
Mob. No. 9818768349
Email: manioberoi@gmail.com
204
205
206
NOTIFICATION UNDER CHALLENGE
ANNEXURE P-1
207
NOTIFICATION UNDER CHALLENGE 208
ANNEXURE P-2(COLLY)/ 1
209
ANNEXURE P-2(COLLY)/ 2
jftLVªh laö Mhö ,yö&33004@99 REGD. NO. D. L.-33004/99
vlk/kj.k
EXTRAORDINARY
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
la- 1893] ubZ fnYyh] cq/okj] tqykbZ 27] 2016@Jko.k 5] 1938
No. 1893] NEW DELHI, WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2016/SRAVANA 5 , 1938
का.आ. 2554(अ).—के ीय सरकार, कं पनी अिधिनयम, 2013 (2013 का 18) क धारा 435 क उप-धारा
(1) ारा द शि य का योग करते ए, द ली उ च यायालय के मु य यायाधीश क सहमित से,
िन िलिखत यायालय को कं पनी अिधिनयम, 2013 के अधीन दो वष या उससे अिधक के कारावास से दंडनीय
अपराध के मामल के व रत िवचारण योजन के िलए कं पनी अिधिनयम, 2013 के अधीन िवशेष यायालय के
प म पदािभिहत करती है, अथात् -
2. तंभ सं या (2) म उि लिखत उपयु यायालय तंभ सं या (3) म उि लिखत अिधका रता क बाबत िवशेष
यायालय के अिधका रता का योग करे ग।
2. The aforesaid Court mentioned in column number (2) shall exercise the jurisdiction as Special Court in respect
of jurisdiction mentioned in column number (3).
[F. No. 01/12/2009-CL-I (Vol.IV)]
AMARDEEP SINGH BHATIA, Jt. Secy.
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
211
ANNEXURE P-2(COLLY)/ 3
334 HARYANA GOVT. GAZ. (EXTRA ), JULY 7, 2015 (ASAR. 16, 1937 SAKA) .
HARYANA GOVERNMENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Notification
The 3rd July, 2015
No. S.O. 137/C.A.10/1994/S.30/2015.- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 30 of the Protection
of Human Rights Act, 1993 (Central Act 10 of 1994) the Governor of Haryana with the concurrence of the Chief
Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court hereby specifies the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, and if
there is only one Court of Additional Sessions Judge, then 1st Additional Sessions Judge in each district in the State
of Haryana, to be a Human Rights Court to try offences under the aforesaid Act, within their respective territorial
jurisdiction.
P. K. MAHAPATRA,
Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana
Administration of Justice Department
ANNEXURE P-2(COLLY)/ 4 212
213
214
215
ANNEXURE P-2(COLLY)/ 5
EXTRACT HR Courts Not Functional- Human Rights 15th Ed, 2014 Dr HO Agarwal
Foreword by Hon'ble Justice PN Bhagwati
216
217