J.C.S.Karnan_Review Petition Covering Letter to Secretary General

>>J.C.S.Karnan_Review Petition Covering Letter to Secretary General

J.C.S.Karnan_Review Petition Covering Letter to Secretary General

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA

Advocate

NEDUMPARA & NEDUMPARA

Law Firm

304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor, 58-64, S.B.S. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 023 &

210, PrasannaVihar Apartments, Near High Court, Cochin, Kerala-682 031

Ph: +91 98205 35428(M), 02222626634, 04842368737, 02222626432,01122146145

E-mail: mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com

 

To

Ld.Secretary General,

Supreme Court of India,

New Delhi-1.

 

Sub: Filing of:

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017

IN

SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017

(Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)

Justice C.S. Karnan                           ………..Review Petitioner  

IN THE MATTER OF:

Supreme Court of India

on its own motion                                      … Suo Moto

          Versus

Justice C.S. Karnan       … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent

 

 

Sir,

 

  • Being the duly authorized advocate of Justice Shri.C.S.Karnan who is undergoing imprisonment in Presidency Jail, Kokotta, we are constrained to send the review petition under Article 137/145 Of The Constitution Of India, along with applications, vakalatnama, affidavit and authorization letter by registered post due to the rejection of the same at the filing counter without adhering to the rules laid down.
  • The impugned judgment being brought to the public notice on 05/07/2017 by way of uploading in the website of the Supreme Court of India, without being pronounced in the open court, is not a judgment at all in terms of Order-XII,Rule-5 and Order-XII,Rule-1 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013. The impugned order in the review petition, which is having a host of lacunae and procedural irregularities resulting into manifest and patent injustice to the petitioner. There are various germane grounds too, upon which the said review petition is founded which are not repeated here.
  • The said review petition was tendered before the filing counter on 12th July, 2017, by Shri.Mathews J.Nedumpara and A.C.Philip along with the registered clerk. Upon tendering the same, the dealing clerk expressed his inability to give the dairy number, which is the bare minimum procedural requirement as per rule 6(2) & 6(4) of Order VIII of the Supreme Court Rules,2013, due to the technical snag and assured candidly that the same will be given the very next day and will be informed through telephonic message and there is no need for the advocates to attend the counter personally. The diary number is the bare minimum acknowledgment of receipt of a document at the counter.
  • On 13th of July, 2017, the registry called the clerk, without any information to the advocates concerned, returned the file without issuing diary number and without giving any acknowledgment, so too without affording any reasons for such disposal. The review petition under Article 137/145 of the Constitution of India stood dismissed by a clerk at the filing counter, an authority which is supposed to be exercised by the Supreme Court of India through it’s Hon’ble Judges, who are appointed by the warrant of the President of India and has taken oath of office. The oral dismissal of the review petition of the petitioner by the clerk at the counter, that too by not affording any reasons, is the most improper way of trampling the constitutional right of the petitioner because, it gives no remedy against such arbitrary dismissal.
  • Upon understanding the above fact, Shri.Mathews J.Nedumpara and A.C.Philip rushed to the dealing clerk, and he expressed his inability and directed to speak to the authorities. Both the advocates instantly went and met Mr. P.K. Bajaj, Addl. Registrar whereas his statements were ‘you can do anything you want, but I am not going to accept it. You go to anybody, I am not bothered’. Even though Rule 5-Order-VIII of the Rules clearly lays down that the petition can be filed by the duly authorized agent as well, and the petition having been tendered with the authority letter for filing, nothing were acknowledged, nor acted upon as per rules.
  • Aggrieved by the said stand both the advocates tried to meet any of the Registrars, but all were preoccupied with e-learning program of SCBA. On the backdrop of the said meeting, both Shri.Mathews J.Nedumpara and A.C.Philip met Shri. Kapil Kumar Mehta, Registrar, Supreme Court of India where he asked to meet his goodself in the office the  very next day. Shri.Mathews J.Nedumpara, being preoccupied, left to Cochin on the same evening. Shi.A.C.Philip met Shri. Kapil Kumar Mehta, Registrar on 13/07/2017, where he again reiterated that the diary number cannot be issued to this review petition. On being pointed out that the petition under Article137/145 of the Constitution of India cannot be dismissed by a clerk sitting on the filing counter, that too orally, without anything on the record, the Ld.Registrar convinced him that the clerk is acting under instructions from top and it is not a decision taken by him. On insistence    for an examination and scrutiny in terms of Rule 6(2) of Order- VIII of the  Supreme Court Rules,2013,  it was not acceded to, but was given an instruction to the registry to reject it’s filing. This is in clear violation of Rule-6(3) , Order-VIII of the Supreme Court Rules, which mandates the Registrar, where a document is found to be defective, to decline to receive the documents by an order in writing, which under no circumstance can be delegated to a court officer.  The authority of the registrar is a delegated power which cannot under any circumstances be delegated to a clerk/court assistant, but are duty bound to exercise personally, after following the due procedures. It further allows a period of 28 days to the petitioner for rectifying the defects, whereas such a legal right also was denied so openly to the petitioner in the instant case. The entitlement of an order from the court for rectifying the defects were also denied to the petitioner.
  • In accordance with Rule 6(4), Order-VII of the rules, the registrar is empowered to decline registration of the document, only if the party fails to take steps for the removal of the defects within the time fixed for the same by the registrar, whereas in the instant case this rule was violated by way of dismissing the petition on the filing counter itself, without being an acknowledgment of receipt. No defects were notified, no acknowledgment were given, no time was given for rectifying the defects and no formal orders were passed, which is appealable. Nothing were followed in terms of the Supreme Court Rules,2013.
  • The said blatant violation of the laid down rules, surely infringes the petitioner’s right to appeal against any of such arbitrary dismissal to a judicial authority, in terms of Rule 6(5), Order-VIII of the said rules. The oral dismissal at the filing counter by a clerk/court assistant gives room for any arbitrary, prejudiced and unfair dismissal being crystallized against the petitioner, without any remedy in law, whereas the procedures lays down a remedy by way of appeal to a Judge in Chambers.
  • On meeting Mr. P.K. Bajaj, Addl. Registrar again on the question of formally notifying the objections, it was told that his goodself has no time to entertain all these issues and raise objections upon it. Hence he is giving instructions to refuse acknowledgment at the counter itself.
  • The above sequence of events is the most arbitrary, unfair, prejudicial, discriminatory and biased abuse of power, to refuse the petitioner his constitutional right of review under Article 137/145 of the constitution of India, which is to be exercised by the judge/bench of the Supreme Court of India through judicial orders. ‘Delegata potestas non potest delegari’, no delegated powers can be further delegated”, being the well accepted legal maxim, the judicial powers vested with the Hon’ble judges of the Supreme Court of India being the delegated powers at the hands of the sovereign of the nation, ‘we the people of India’, the said powers cannot be furhter delegated to the clerk/court assistant under any stretch of imagination. It leads to a situation, where, the clerk at the filing counter can take judicial decision and dismiss any petition, at his whims and fancies, without even acknowledging the receipt, and can shoo away the preselected petitioners, the disliked ones without any legal remedy left with.
  • Even assuming that there are procedural irregularities in existence in the petition, the parliament of India,  by laid down rules has provide enough safeguards to deal with the same.
  • The procedural safeguards in accordance with the Order-VII of the Supreme Court Rules,2013 is to acknowledge the receipt of any document by way of diary number and subject it to scrutiny by the registry through a scrutiny clerk and return the file with the objections any, for rectifying the same. The above said rules are the procedural safeguards, which are protecting the citizens against arbitrary decisions by any individual exercising the authority, where the transactions are well documented and the remedies against the arbitrary and tyrannical decisions, may be based upon personal vengeance also can be challenged and rectified by way of an appeal in accordance with the  Supreme Court Rules, whereas the rejection at the threshold, without adhering to the procedures laid down and in blatant violation of the rules is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in denial of the basic natural right of access to justice. The non acceptance and dismissal of review petition by the senior court assistant, at the filing counter itself is a clear violation the Supreme Court Rules.
  • Under these circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to send the same by registered post to your good self for the compliance of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and acknowledgment by way of diary number.. Hence it is requested that the accompanying Book of review petition along with the applications, vakalatnama, affidavit and authorization letter may please be received by acknowledgment of diary number and subjected to scrutiny in terms of Order-VII of the Supreme Court Rules,2013.
  • As this is a matter concerning the constitutional rights of the citizens of India, the petitioner is marking the copies of this letter to all pillars of democracy, the President of India, the Vice President of India, the Prime Minister of India, The Chief Justice of India, the Speaker of Lokshaba and the press, being the fourth estate/pillar, for information and appropriate action.

Thanking you in anticipation,

 

Yours sincerely,

New Delhi

15.07.2017

(Mathews J.Nedumpara)

(B.K.Adhikary)

(A.C.Philip)

&

(C.J.Joveson)

Advocates for the review petitioner

 

Enclosure: As stated

 

Copy (Without enclosures) to:

 

  1. His Excellency Shri Pranab Kumar Mukherjee,

President of India,

 

  1. The Hon’ble Shri.Mohammad Hamid Ansari,

Vice President of Idnia.

 

  1. The Hon’ble Shri Narendra Modi,

Prime Minister of India.

 

  1. The Hon’ble Smt.Sumitra Mahajan,

Speaker of Loksabha,

 

  1. The Hon’ble Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar,

Chief Justice of India,

 

  1. The Press/Media.
By | 2021-06-28T12:33:56+00:00 March 31st, 2018|blog|0 Comments

Leave A Comment