Written Arguments against Writ 90 of 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
IN
CIVIL WRIT PETITON NO.90 OF 2016
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH …………..PETITIONER
VERSUS
INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS Ltd ….RESPONDENT
& ORS
SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN MENTIONING OF ARGUMENTS ON
BEHALF OF PETITIONER FOR THE DATE OF HEARING ON
18.04.2016.
To
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and
His Lordship's Companion Justices of
the Supreme Court of India. The
Humble petition of the Petitioner
abovenamed.
MOST RESPECFULLY SHOWETH:

That the petitioner is submitting the written
mentioning of arguments under the sub-headings of
brief summary; application for ex-parte ad-interim
stay; justification for NOTICE as to why notice or
summon is required against Respondent No.04 to 13;
prayers and observation of petitioner.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
1.Hon’ble sir, the matter is dismissal and
criminal conspiracy since 12 years through
misusing Government Machinery to break me down
in Bihar as well as in Delhi. Infringing my
fundamental right under Article 14, 15 and 21;
“right to life or personal liberty
specifically.”
2.Hon’ble sir, an extreme attempt was made to
turn my cooking gas stove permanently off by
way of stopping the delivery of LPG Cylinder.
It is being done after making Indane Delhi area
officer as a party in this Writ Petition. It is
pertinent to mention here that the website of
Indane was showing successful delivery of
Cylinder to the customer on 04.04.2016.
However, it was not delivered on the ground
after a lapse of 9 days from the date of

booking on 02.04.2016. After an online
complaint vide SRN No. 2609362 dated 10.04.2016
against non-delivery of cylinder with Indane by
me, proprietor of local gas agency intervened
into the matter and delivered the cylinder
without any proper receipt. However, Proprietor
of Local Gas Agency took my undertaking for
delivery of the cylinder on 11.04.2016 and
ensured me that I should make the payment for
this cylinder only after receiving the proper
receipt. How can I live if my cooking gas stove
being turned off permanently by these misused
Government machineries?
3.Hon’ble sir, these misused Government
Machineries are hitting me strategically to
break me down, infringing my right to life or
personal liberty.
4. Hon’ble sir, these misused Government
Machineries have hit my livelihood; hit my bank
account; hit my LPG agency to hack my Aadhar
card as it is linked with bank account; hit my
mother’s pension account to hack ATM pin; hit
my mother’s income/revenue from property
through Bank in the garb of GRC; hit my house

and turned it into public toilets through SP
Katihar and local Mukhiya and hit my voter
identity card through Booth Level Officer and
through officials of ERO by way of issuing
frivolous NOTICE u/s 22 of RP Act 1950 dated
16.03.2016 to delete my and my mother’s name
vide Sl No. 656 & Sl No. 653, Part No.23 of the
Electoral Roll for Bijwasan Assembly
Constituency from the voter list of NCT of
Delhi. Online complaint with Chief Electoral
officer of Delhi vide complaint no. 63935 &
6396 dated 23.03.2016; complaint no. 64104 &
64105 dated 31.03.2016 and complaint no. 64124
& 64125 dated 01.04.2016 has been registered.
Online complaints with Election Commission of
India vide complaint ID: DL/5/36/455191 dated
01.04.2016 and complaint ID: DL/5/36/455611
dated 04.04.2016 has also been registered.
Apart from this, an online complaint with
Public Grievances Monitoring System, Government
of NCT of Delhi vide complaint no. 201627443
dated 23.03.2016 and complaint no. 201631800
dated 06.04.2016 has also been lodged. It is
pertinent to note that an attempt to delete our
names from voter list of Delhi is being made to
trap us in the courts of Bihar u/s 498A/323.

5.Hon’ble sir, the sole motive of these misused
Government Machineries is to continue to keep
me in the trap of unusual court disputes by way
of instituting frivolous litigations against me
in different courts of India so that I could
not settle my life during my whole span of
lifetime.
6.Hon’ble sir, I am the worst trauma man since 12
years. I have been virtually detained at home
since 12 years by these misused Government
machineries.
7.Hon’ble sir, the root of this volcano is
Respondent No.04 and other 12 respondents are
the lavas of this volcano.
8.Hon’ble sir, this volcano remains dormant and
becomes active after a gap of 5 years.
9.Hon’ble sir, for the first time it erupted on
31.03.2010 by way of instituting a frivolous
case no. 9P/2010 through protection officer,
Begusarai and managed to get issued a frivolous
N.B.W dated 25.08.2010 through the husband of

protection officer, Gopal Kumar, Advocate,
district court, Begusarai against the
petitioner and his ailing old age mother
through SP Begusarai. Replication and
cancellation of N.B.W have been filed by the
petitioner on 03.03.2011 against this frivolous
case at Begusarai Court in Bihar. It is
pertinent to mention here that the petitioner
was totally unaware of it and was not in
receipt of any notice or summon against it. It
is also on the Supreme Court Record with SLP(C)
no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013 and SLP(C)
no. 19073/2013.
10. Hon’ble sir, again it became dormant and
did not file written statement (WS) before
Trial Court at New Delhi and did not join High
Court of Delhi even after receipt of service
Notice which is also on SCR.
11. Hon’ble sir, three SLPs has been filed by
the petitioner in this Hon’ble Court; one in
2012 vide SLP(C) no. 9854/2012 and two in 2013
vide SLP(C) no. 9483/2013 and SLP(C) no.
19073/2013.

12. Hon’ble sir, after the pronouncement of
Judgment by the High Court of Delhi in favour
of petitioner in MAT. APPL. 7/2012 on
23.07.2013; second time this volcano erupted in
2013 by way of instituting another frivolous
criminal case vide case no. 5591/2013 u/s
498A/323 of IPC and u/s 3/4 of D.P. Act with
filing date 07.02.2011 and first hearing date
05.12.2013 without the knowledge of petitioner.
It is pertinent to note here that the client of
Respondent No.04 has appeared before the Trial
Court at New Delhi on 09.02.2011 and
intentionally did not mention criminal case no.
5591/2013 filing date 7.2.2011 u/s 498A/323 of
IPC and u/s 3/4 of D.P Act to the Trial Court.
13. Hon’ble sir, the marriage was fraudulent
with misrepresentation of bride. I have never
ever been to the residence of rich IOCL client
of Respondent no.04 in my whole life. I even do
not know the multiple residential addresses of
rich IOCL client of Respondent no.04 since 12
years. For the first time I came to know the
official address of rich IOCL client of
Respondent no.04 on 09.02.2011 when she
supplied the proceedings of Begusarai Court
before the Trial Court at New Delhi.

14. Hon’ble sir, after winning the case MAT.
APPL. 7/2012 in 2013, the petitioner has
visited thrice to his parental house in Bihar
and has not received any Notice or Summon
against u/s 498A/323 of IPC and u/s 3/4 of D.P.
Act as on date.
15. Hon’ble sir, it is a backstabbing plans to
create and repeat another Kanahiya case (of
17th
February, 2016 inside the Patiala House
Court premises at New Delhi) in the premises of
Begusarai Court against the petitioner.
16. Hon’ble sir, it also violates the
directions of this Hon’ble Court which has been
laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs State
of Bihar in Cr APP No. 1277 of 2014.
17. Hon’ble sir, three untimely deaths have
been occurred in the family of the petitioner
since 12 years. His family has been reduced to
one member family i.e. ailing old age mother
only now and these lavas are increasing day by
day against the petitioner; infringing his
right to life or personal liberty.

18. Hon’ble sir, if these increasing lavas are
not being stopped and not being punished then
petitioner and his mother will also disappear
untimely and his property will be usurped by
the client of the respondent no.04 and no one
will be left in their family to report to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
19. Hon’ble sir, NALSA has been dropped from
the list of respondents because of defect
raised by this Hon’ble Court. CIC order dated
25.09.2014 has not been complied by the Delhi
State Legal Service Authority (DSLSA).
Notational Legal Service Authority (NALSA) has
not replied back the letter dated 13.04.2015 of
Department of Justice to the petitioner.
20. Hon’ble sir, it has been observed over the
period of 12 years that 7 out of 13 respondents
are from the same community i.e. Kayasth
community viz. Praveen Kumar, C&MD, IDPL; Veena
Kumari, Protection officer Begusarai; her
husband, Gopal Kumar, Advocate district court,
Begusarai; Yugal Kishore Sinha, DSP, Katihar;
Nawal Kishore Sinha, Accountant, SBI, ADB
Sonaili Bazar, Katihar; Dhirendra Prasad,
Advocate, district court, Katihar and Hari

Prasad, Assistant Commissioner, Food supplies &
consumer affairs, Dwarka, New Delhi.
21. Hon’ble sir, this petition is relied upon
the following Judgments of this Hon’ble court
viz. Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd
Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly AIR 1986 SC 1571;
Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College,
Shamli & Ors. v. Lakshmi Narain & Ors. AIR 1976
SC 888; Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar,
Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014, SCR; Menka
Gandhi Vs Union of India; S.S. Shetty v. Bharat
Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 12: (1958) SCR 442 and
Pannalal Jankidas v. Mohanlal, AIR 1951 SC 145:
(1950) SCR 979.
22. Hon’ble sir, 9 questions of laws; 13
respondents; two district courts and all the
three tier of Legal Aid Institutions are
arising out of this petition and has been
answered through 80 Annexures and 50 Grounds
including an application for Additional facts,
grounds, respondents and prayer vide diary no.
21529 dated 11.03.2016.

23. Hon’ble sir, justification for notice
against Respondent no. 04 to 13 has been
mentioned in this written argument, as to why
notice is required to be served against the
same.
24. Hon’ble sir, 5 prayers have been made in
this petition against district courts of
Begusarai Court in Bihar; district courts of
Patiala House Court in Delhi; Respondent no. 01
to 03; Respondent no.1 & 4 to 11 and Respondent
no. 12 & 13.
APPLICATION FOR EX-PARTE AD-INTERIM STAY:
25. Hon’ble sir, Respondent No. 01 & 02 did
not let me to work, kept me without work for
one month at Head Office to promote a closet
female executive (Kamana saini) of Respondent
No. 01 & 02 and transferred me to the plant
with mala fide intention without assigning any
reason thereof. My Official Note against
transferred order being refused to diary by the
Respondent No.02. Subsequently dismissed my
service without paying a single penny; setting
aside the Audi Alterm Partem Rule. Petitioner
has explored all available internal

administrative remedies w.e.f. 05.06.2014 to
24.09.2015 for enforcement of his contractual
employment. Patiala House Court retained the
petition for more than 6 months without its
jurisdiction to try this nature of suit.
Discrimination at work place has been exhibited
by Annexure P-11 page no. 103 to 109 VOL-I
dated 05.06.2014. Grounds have been taken as A
in page no.60 and B in page no.61. Transfer
order has been exhibited by Annexure P-12 page
no. 110 to 111 VOL-I dated 20.06.2014. Grounds
have been taken as J to L in page no.64.
Refusal to diary my official note against
transfer order by the respondent no. 02 has
been exhibited by Annexure P-13 page no. 112 to
113 VOL-I dated 20.06.2014. Grounds have been
taken as B in page no.61. Suppression of
whistle blower complaint against discrimination
at work place has been exhibited by Annexure P-
14 page no. 114 to 126 VOL-I dated 23.06.2014.
Grounds have been taken as A in page no.60 and
B in page no.61. Dismissal of service order has
taken as H in page no.63. Reply by Respondent
No. 01 & 02 has been exhibited by Annexure P-35
page no. 186 to 192 VOL-I dated 22.06.2015.

Grounds have been taken as M to U in page no.
from 65 to 70.
26. Hon’ble sir, Respondent No. 03 has upheld
the dismissal by its reply which has been
exhibited by Annexure P-17 page no. 131 to 139
VOL-I dated 24.12.2014. Grounds have been taken
as I in page no.63. Replication by the
petitioner has been exhibited by Annexure P-18
Grounds have been taken as I in page no.64.
Respondent no. 03 has closed the case without
settlement through online CPGRAMS which has
taken as I in page no.64. Another replication
by the petitioner has been exhibited by
Annexure P-36 page no. 193 to 200 VOL-I dated
29.06.2015. Grounds have been taken as I in
page no.64 and O in page no.65 to 66. The issue
of resjudicata has been raised by Respondent
No. 01 & 02 to jeopardize the conciliation
proceeding before Dy. Chief Labour
Commissioner, Central has been exhibited by
Annexure P-44 page no. 258 to 265 VOL-II dated
24.09.2015. Grounds have been taken as N in
page no.65. The Writ petition in letter form

has been hijacked by Respondent no. 01 & 02
from the post office which has been exhibited
by Annexure P-67 page no. 463 to 464 VOL-II
dated 30.12.2015. Grounds have been taken as D
in page no.62; N in page no.65; and W in page
no. 71. Respondent no. 01 & 02 has justified
the insubordination inflicted upon petitioner
through C&MD’s closet junior female executive
Kamana Saini, aged about 32, in his Written
Statement (WS) before SCJ, Patiala House Court
at New Delhi in the case no. 201/2015 has been
exhibited by Annexure P-42 page no. 232 VOL-I
dated 07.09.2015. Grounds have been taken as B
in page no.61. Respondent no. 01 & 02 has
justified no payment of salary required to pay
to the petitioner in his Written Statement (WS)
before SCJ, Patiala House Court at New Delhi in
the case no. 201/2015 has been exhibited by
Annexure P-42 page no. 234 VOL-I dated
07.09.2015. Grounds have been taken as C in
page no.61 and O in page no.65. Respondent no.
01 & 02 has justified no reason for transfer
and termination of service required to give to
the petitioner in their Written Statement (WS)
before SCJ, Patiala House Court at New Delhi in
the case no. 201/2015 has been exhibited by

07.09.2015. Grounds have been taken as H in
page no.63; J in page no. 64; K in page no. 64;
M in page no.65; Q in page no.66; R in page no.
67 and S in page no. 67. Respondent no. 01 & 02
has justified that no notice required for
termination of service of the petitioner in his
Written Statement (WS) before SCJ, Patiala
House Court at New Delhi in the case no.
201/2015 has been exhibited by Annexure P-42
page no. 244 VOL-I dated 07.09.2015. Grounds
have been taken as E to G in page no. from 62
to 63.
27. Hon’ble sir, as the contract is continuing
therefore an application has been filed for ex-
parte ad-interim order for stay in page no. 490
to 495.
28. Hon’ble sir, the ex-parte ad-interim order
for stay is important in the public interest
because the increasing magnitude of the
contractual white color employees due to
Government Policy in the present market
scenario in absence of any specific legislation
which governs the employment and working
conditions of white color workers which makes

them vulnerable in the hands of Power elite. It
is also important to discourage the arbitrary
and discriminatory state action against the
vulnerable common man. It is also important
because the petitioner cannot take gainful
employment during the pendency of the case or
during the continuation of the contract period
whichever is earlier.
WHY NOTICE OR SUMMON IS REQUIRED AGAINST
RESPONDENTS NO. 4 TO 13?
29. Hon’ble sir, Respondent No. 04 is the
root of disastrous volcano. Respondent No. 04
has misused and abused her vested power by way
of instituting frivolous litigation vide case
No. 9P/2010 dated 31.03.2010 before CJM Court
Begusarai, Bihar after a gap of 5 years for her
own vested interest which has been exhibited by
31.03.2010. Grounds have been taken as X in
page no.72 and which is also on the Supreme
Court Record with SLP(C)no. 9854/2012,
SLP(C)no. 9483/2013 and SLP(C)no. 19073/2013.

30. Hon’ble sir, time and again, respondent
No. 04 has misused and abused her vested power
by way of instituting another frivolous
criminal litigation against petitioner and his
ailing mother vide case No. 5591/2013 before
CJM Court, Begusarai, Bihar [filing date
07.02.2011 and first hearing date 05.12.2013
which has been supplied by the System Officer,
Begusarai, Bihar on 01.03.2016 against the
information sought against the Case No. 9P/2010
by the petitioner] for her own vested interest.
Information sought from System Officer,
District court Begusarai, Bihar by the
petitioner against the Case No. 9P/2010 has
been exhibited by Additional Annexure P-1 in
additional page no. 19 to 20 VOL-II dated
29.02.2016 and information supplied by the
System Officer, District court Begusarai, Bihar
to the petitioner has been exhibited by
Additional Annexure P-2 in additional page no.
21 to 22 VOL-II dated 01.03.2016. Additional
Grounds have been taken as A to H in Additional
page no. 9 to 11 VOL-II.
31. Hon’ble sir, this is another back stabbing
plan of Respondent No.04 to create and repeat
another Kanahiya case (of 17th
February, 2016

inside the Patiala House Court premises) in the
premises of Begusarai Court. Hence, notice is
inevitable and required to be served against
Respondent No.04.
32. Hon’ble sir, Respondent No. 05 is Gopal
Kumar, Advocate, District Court Begusarai,
husband of Respondent No.04, managed to get
issued a frivolous NBW through SP Begusari
against the petitioner and his ailing mother
dated 25.08.2010 against the case No. 9P/2010
while the petitioner was not in receipt of any
notice or summon against this and was
struggling to save the life of his ailing
mother in ICU of AIIMS at New Delhi, for his
own vested interest, misused the law of the
land, diluted the piousness of Judicial System
which has been exhibited by Annexure P-2 page
no. 85 VOL-I dated 25.08.2010. Grounds have
been taken as Y in page no.72; D in page no.62
and W in page no.71 in main petition and which
is also on the Supreme Court Record with
SLP(C)no. 9854/2012, SLP(C)no. 9483/2013 and
SLP(C)no. 19073/2013. Hence, notice is required
to be served against Respondent No.05.

33. Hon’ble sir, another respondent No. 05 is
Dhirendra Prasad, Advocate, District Court,
Katihar, has given a threat to the life of the
petitioner and his pensioned mother to render
apology or to face criminal case u/s 500 of IPC
against the Notice u/s 80 CPC to SBI accountant
and Bank manager sonaili. Very first para of
his reply is false as the recent ATM slip dated
06.03.2016 is evident of this fact; ATM still
gives KYC alert, “your account requires KYC
updation. Immediately call on your home branch
with requisite documents.” It is pertinent to
note that the customer is a family pension
holder and not a direct pension holder.
Customer is submitting her Life Certificate
every year in the month of November since 2007
after an untimely death of her (Head master)
husband. Nevertheless, address proof with a
copy of P.P.O has been resubmitted and has been
received by the accountant SBI sonaili on
26.10.2015. Further, Bank Manager directed the
customer through email dated 12.11.2015 to
submit her Aadhar Card for updation in the
system, while Aadhar is not implemented in that
region as on date. However, Customer has
complied the order of the Bank Manager and sent
her Aadhar card through email dated 12.11.2015.

Yet, Manager has not updated the KYC of the
customer in the system till date. Ironically,
he did not reply the para no. 03 of Notice u/s
80 CPC against the direct refusal by SBI
accountant Sonaili to open up the ATM machine
on 26.10.2015 as the pensioned customer could
not climb to the upstairs for withdrawal of her
pension. However, he defended the technical
manipulation and wrong command fed in the ATM
machine at Dwarka, New Delhi which establishes
his nexus with SBI, Dwarka branch to hack the
ATM pin. In his reply, he also directed the
pensioned customer to transfer her family
pension to home branch, what he calls; New
Delhi as her home branch; while customer is
aborigine of sonaili having her lifetime
acquired property over there. It is also
defeating the very purpose of core banking
system of SBI. Notice u/s 80 CPC has been
VOL-II dated 02.11.2015. Grounds have been
taken as AA to BB in page no.73 to 74. SBI
reply has been exhibited by Annexure P-72 page
no. 484 to 489 VOL-II dated 11.01.2016. Grounds
have been taken as CC in page no.74 to 75; D in
page no.62 and W in page no. 71 in main
petition. Hence, notice is required.

34. Hon’ble sir, respondent No. 06 is Yugal
Kishore Sinha, DSP Katihar who was sent to the
house of the petitioner’s mother dated
01.08.2011 at 4:00PM when Ms Deepa Sharma,
Principal Judge family court Dwarka court at
New Delhi refused to take on record the ex
parte evidence of the petitioner at 3:00PM
dated 01.08.2011. On the other hand, DSP
Katihar did not take on record the statement of
petitioner’s mother intentionally as it was
against the rich IOCL client of Respondent
No.04. Petitioner has reported against DSP
Katihar to SP Katihar through several emails
but SP Katihar did not pay any heed to it which
has been exhibited by Annexure P-3 page no. 86
to 88 VOL-I dated 03.08.2011; Annexure P-4 page
no. 89 to 90 VOL-I dated 29.09.2011 and
Annexure P-5 page no. 91 to 92 VOL-I dated
31.12.2012. Grounds have been taken as Z in
page no.73; D in page no.62 and W in page no.71
in main petition. Hence, notice is required.
35. Hon’ble sir, respondent No. 07 is
accountant SBI Sonaili against whom notice u/s
80 CPC has been sent for attacking the pension
account of customer, harassing the customer

unnecessarily, not removing KYC alert, refusing
to open ATM machine for withdrawal, planning to
hack the ATM pin of customer, tracking the
customer till Delhi with ulterior motive and
establishing nexus with Dwarka SBI Branch to
hack the ATM pin of customer. SBI Sonaili has
replied back through Dhirendra Prasad,
Advocate, District court Katihar threatening
the life of the petitioner and his mother to
render apology or to face criminal case u/s 500
of IPC against the Notice u/s 80 CPC to SBI
(accountant and bank manager) sonaili. Service
record of Respondent No. 07 is self-explanatory
that he has been demoted from Branch Manager to
Accountant and transferred from SBI Morshanda
to SBI Sonaili. Notice u/s 80 CPC has been
taken as AA to BB in page no.73 to 74. Reply
has been exhibited by Annexure P-72 page no.
484 to 489 VOL-II dated 11.01.2016. Grounds
have been taken as CC in page no.74 to 75;
Grounds taken as D in page no.62 and W in page
no. 71 in main petition. Hence, notice is
required to be served against Respondent No.07.

36. Hon’ble sir, respondent No. 08 is Branch
Manager SBI Sonaili. Revenue of property of the
petitioner’s mother has been attacked by Branch
Manager SBI Sonaili in the garb of Green Remit
Card (GRC), while GRC is not mandatory and it
is not applicable for home branch. Chairman and
LHO patna have been intimated against the
refusal of Branch Manager to deposit the cash
against her saving account by her attendant of
property which has been exhibited by Annexure
P-68 page no. 465 to 467 VOL-II dated
04.01.2016 and Annexure P-69 page no. 468 to
470 VOL-II dated 05.01.2016. Grounds have been
taken as AA in page no.73. Unsatisfactory and
threatening reply of SBI Sonaili has been
taken as CC in page no.74 to 75; Grounds taken
as D in page no.62 and W in page no. 71 in main
petition. Hence, notice is required.
37. Hon’ble sir, respondent No. 09 is Branch
Manager, SBI, Dwarka sec-08 at New Delhi.
Branch Manager did not pay any heed to the
complaint against wrong command fed in the ATM
machine to hack the ATM pin of the customer
instead cornered the onus to the ATM vendor, as

maintenance of ATM machine is a outsourced
service by the SBI. Branch Manager, in his
reply against the notice u/s 80 CPC, misled the
fact, “we regret for the inconvenience caused
to you while withdrawing money from ATM due to
availability of only Rs. 100/- denomination
Notes in ATM as high value notes were
exhausted. We further advise that since the ATM
services are outsourced, we have taken up the
matter strongly with the vendor. However,
charges recovered for excess ATM transactions
have already refunded to you”. Chairman and LHO
Delhi have been intimated against the wrong
command fed in the ATM machine ID NO.
SIBJ000733445 which comes under the maintenance
jurisdiction of SBI Delhi Cantt. However,
setting a wrong command for limiting the
withdrawal of Rs. 1000/- at one time in one
clique has nothing to do with the low value
denomination of currencies. Even if there is a
low value denomination of currencies fed in ATM
machine, one can withdraw Rs. 22000/- in one
transaction; machine cannot stop the customer
from dispensing Rs. 22000/- with low value
denomination of currencies. While in the
present case machine was stopping the customer
from dispensing Rs. 22000/- even with low value

denomination of currencies at one time
transaction. The main crucial points regarding
external and internal audit report of ATM
machine server and CCTV footage of ATM machine
between 10:29 AM to 14:29 PM dated 29.10.2015
were neither shared nor supplied any materials
against the said complaint either by LHO Delhi
or by Branch Manager, SBI Dwarka Sec-8. Notice
u/s 80 CPC has been exhibited by Annexure P-51
page no. 326 to 341 VOL-II dated 04.11.2015.
Acknowledgement of complaint by Chairman SBI
have been taken as DD to FF from page no.75 to
77; D in page no.62 and W in page no.71.
Misleading reply of SBI Dwarka has been
taken as DD to FF from page no.75 to 77;
Grounds taken as D in page no.62 and W in page
no.71 in main petition. Hence, notice is
required to be served against Respondent No.10.
38. Hon’ble sir, respondent No. 10 is Hari
Prasad, Assistant Commissioner, Food supplies &
consumer affairs, South West district, NCT of
Delhi gave a suspected call to the petitioner

without any complaint, exactly at the time of
LPG delivery by the delivery man of local Gas
agency, Gauri Enterprises with an ulterior
motive to verify the petitioner’s identity to
hack his confidential data from agency as it is
Aadhar linked with bank account of the
petitioner in Delhi. [Earlier, long back, the
petitioner had exposed the nexus of Ration
mafia with the Government officials of Food
supplies & consumer affairs, South West
district, NCT of Delhi. A SCN was issued to the
FPS owner against non-distribution of the
Ration commodity.] It has been exhibited by
30.11.2015. Grounds have been taken as GG in
page no.77; Grounds taken as D in page no.62
and W in page no.71 in main petition. Hence,
notice is required against Respondent No.10.
39. Hon’ble sir, respondent No. 11 is Ankit
Bhatia, AM (LPG-S), Delhi Indane Area Officer.
Local LPG Indane agency has generated wrong
bill against the petitioner deliberately at the
behest of respondent no. 10. Complaint against
deliberate wrong bill has been sent to local
LPG agency under the intimation of Executive
Director LPG. Respondent no.11 has replied back

unsatisfactorily hiding the fact in the garb of
recent build in software and few technical
changes. However, ground has been taken against
his reply that Indian Oil Corporation is
managing centralized software, any changes in
software is applicable for the entire Indane
customer, not regionally targeting the specific
customer, which has resulted in strengthening
cynicism against the misuse of public
authorities against the petitioner. Complaint
to LPG distributor under the intimation to
executive Director LPG has been exhibited by
30.11.2015. Grounds have been taken as GG in
page no.77; D in page no.62 and W in page
no.71. Reply by Delhi LPG Indane Area Officer
have been taken as HH in page no.78; Grounds
taken as D in page no.62 and W in page no.71 in
main petition. Hence, notice is required.
40. Hon’ble sir, Additional Respondent No. 12
is Chief Secretary of Bihar. An additional
application has been filed vide diary no. 21529
on 11.03.2016 before this Hon’ble Court because
after filing the present Writ (C) petition 90

of 2016 on 29.01.2016, petitioner’s parental
house being attacked and turned into public
toilets by elected Panchayat leader, Mukhiya
with the blessing of SP Katihar. When SP
Katihar did not take any action against Mukhiya
then Petitioner escalated his complaint against
SP Katihar to the Director General of Police,
Bihar; Chief Minister Secretariat, Bihar;
District Magistrate Katihar; MLA Kadwa and MP
Katihar. No FIR has been registered; no reply
has been supplied by any agencies so far. The
commission of criminal trespass by an elected
panchayat leader and no action by the State
Government agencies legitimizes the bad
governance and establishes the lawlessness in
the state against the life and security of a
common man. Email complaint to DGP Bihar has
been exhibited by Additional Annexure P-4 in
03.03.2016. Online complaint to Chief Minister
Secretariat, Government of Bihar has been
exhibited by Additional Annexure P-7 in
04.03.2016. Fax and Email Complaint to District
Magistrate, Katihar has been exhibited by
28 to 30 VOL-II dated 04.03.2016. Email

Complaint to MLA, Kadwa has been exhibited by
31 to 33 VOL-II dated 04.03.2016. Email
complaint to MP, Katihar has been exhibited by
36 to 38 VOL-II dated 08.03.2016. Additional
Grounds have been taken as I to L in additional
page no.11 to 12; Grounds taken as D in page
no.62 and W in page no.71 in main petition.
Hence, notice is required.
41. Hon’ble sir, Additional Respondent No. 13
is SP Katihar. My father’s house who happened
to be Head Master of that area, is being turned
into a public toilets with banners, posters and
installation of tube wells/bore wells and
public toilets inside the premises of the house
having text “toilets for female only at the
entry gate” and “toilets for male only” in the
middle of the building in the midst of
religious gathering called Bhagwat through SP
Katihar and local Mukhiya without the consent
of petitioner. Local Mukhiya has admitted his
act of criminal trespass to the petitioner over
telephone on 03.03.2016. SP Katihar has not
taken any action on my faxed complaint dated
03.03.2016 till the end of religious gathering

called Bhagwat dated 05.03.2016. SP Katihar did
not even order for removal of the posters,
banners, public toilets and public bore
wells/tube wells even after a fax complaint on
03.03.2016; in spite of information over
landline and mobile on 03.03.2016 rather SP
Katihar let it be remained till the end of
religious gathering w.e.f. 28.02.2016 to
05.03.2016. It is pertinent to note that any
Mukhiya of Kantiya Panchayat had not committed
such heinous crime of criminal trespass against
the petitioner’s house in the last 36 years. It
is also pertinent to note that heavy cops were
deployed in front of the house of the
petitioner which happened to be the venue of
the (More than 10 lakhs budgeted) religious
functions/gathering under the control of SP
Katihar. Hence, SP Katihar has legitimized the
act of criminal trespass by local Mukhiya. SP
Katihar neither took any action against the
Local Mukhiya nor replied back to Chief
Minister Secretariat complaint no. 99999-
0303160113 within the stipulated time of 14
days. SP Katihar has legitimized the
infringement of fundamental rights of a common
man. Faxed complaint to SP Katihar has been
exhibited by Additional Annexure P-3 in

03.03.2016. Additional Grounds have been taken
as M to O in additional page no.12 to 13;
Grounds also have been taken as D in page no.62
and W in page no.71 in the main petition.
Hence, notice is inevitable and required to be
served against the Respondent no.13 for
enforcement of fundamental rights of the
petitioner under Article 21.
42. Hon’ble sir, CIC order dated 25.09.2014
has not been complied by the Delhi State Legal
Services Authority(DSLSA) which has been
VOL-I dated 25.09.2014. Grounds have been taken
as V in page no.71. Hence, appropriate action
is inevitable against Delhi State Legal
Services Authority (DSLSA) in the public
interest.
43. Hon’ble sir, letter from Department of
Justice to NALSA dated 13.04.2015 has not been
replied back by National Legal Service
Authority(NALSA) to the petitioner which has
150 VOL-I dated 13.04.2015. NALSA’s letter to
the Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Service

Committee has been exhibited by Annexure P-23
NALSA’s letter to the Secretary, Delhi High
Court Legal Service Committee has been
VOL-I dated 13.05.2015. NALSA’s letter to the
Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services
Authority has been exhibited by Annexure P-25
Grounds have been taken as V in page no.71.
Hence, appropriate action is inevitable against
National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) in
the public interest.
PRAYERS:
44. Hon’ble sir, issue a writ of mandamus or
other appropriate writ order or direction
directing respondent No.01 to 03 for
enforcement of the Fundamental Rights under
Article 14, 15 and 21 of the petitioner
staying/setting aside/quashing/modifying/ the
termination of service order dated 08.12.2014
to reinstate him with full back wages.
45. Hon’ble sir, issue a writ of mandamus or
other appropriate writ order or direction

directing respondent No. 01 and 04 to 11 for
Article 21 to initiate appropriate action and
pass necessary directions to prevent such
incidence of misuse of Government Machinery
against consistent planting of criminal
conspiracy against the vulnerable petitioner
and his old age ailing mother as the petitioner
has been left with only one member in his
family now, after an untimely demise of his
father in the similar fashion.
46. Hon’ble sir, a prayer has been taken
against Patiala House Court to issue a writ of
prohibition or Certiorari or other
appropriate writ order or direction to the
Patiala House Court at New Delhi on the facts
and in the circumstances of the case for
Article 14 and 21.
47. Hon’ble sir, additional prayer has been
taken against Begusarai Court to issue a writ
of prohibition or Certiorari or other
appropriate writ order or direction to the
Begusarai Court at Begusarai, Bihar to initiate
appropriate action against the respondent no.04

and her Advocate husband Gopal Kumar for
instituting and continuing a frivolous
litigation against the petitioner and his
ailing mother and to dispose of the long
pending frivolous litigation against the
petitioner and his ailing mother and pass
necessary directions to prevent such incidence
of instituting frivolous litigations against
petitioner and his ailing mother for
Article 21.
48. Hon’ble sir, additional prayer has been
taken against Respondent No. 12 & 13 to issue a
writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ
order or direction directing respondent No. 12
and 13 for enforcement of the Fundamental
Rights under Article 21 to initiate appropriate
action against Sh. Bihari Lal Bubna, Mukhiya,
Kantiya Panchayat, Sonaili, Kadwa, Katihar and
pass necessary directions to prevent such
incidence against the vulnerable petitioner and
his old age ailing mother as the petitioner has
been left with only one member in his family
now, after an untimely demise of his father in
the similar fashion.

OBSERVATION OF PETITIONER:
49. Hon’ble sir, at the end, the petitioner
would like to put his 12 years painful
observation against this unusual case/dispute;
the actual fight is between rich and poor,
powerful and powerless, strong and weak, have
and have not’s and elite and non-elite,
irrespective of sex, caste, creed and
nationality. A self-esteemed common man will
prefer to end his life in this endless struggle
rather than to cow down before the rich and
power elite.
50. Hon’ble sir, I have been punished by the
Indian Governance System since 12 years and
subjected to virtual death for saving the life
of my ailing old age parents and protecting the
basic fabric of the institutions of Family,
Marriage and Kinship.
51. Hon’ble sir, will any institutions or
public return precious 12 years of victim poor
and powerless man? Will any institutions or
public return his GOD like father who starved
himself to educate his only son?

DRAWN & FILED BY:
PETITIONER IN PERSON
OM PRAKASH
NEW DELHI:
FILED ON :08.04.2016
Settled by: Petitioner
VIDE DIARY NO.28889

Written Arguments against Writ 90 of 2016

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (12)

Semelhante a Written Arguments against Writ 90 of 2016

Semelhante a Written Arguments against Writ 90 of 2016 (20)

Mais de Om Prakash Poddar

Mais de Om Prakash Poddar (20)

Written Arguments against Writ 90 of 2016