Please Find Time to Read My petition to the Supreme Court Of India... which is stucked up under fictitious UNDER SCRUTINY grounds. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Criminal Original Jurisdiction) Writ Petition (Criminal) No……2012 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) (Arising out of impugned orders, dated 4.07.12 and 13.08.12 in the Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim, at Gangtok and impugned orders, dated 3.09.12 and 25.09.12 in the Court of Ld. District & Session Judge (S&W), at Namchi, by Tr. P (C) no. 2936/judl/HCS, dated 16.08.2012 from Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim). In the matter of : Ruth Karthak Lepchani r/o P.S. and P.O. Singtam, E. Sikkim --- Writ Petitioner - versus - 1) Chewang Dorjee Bhutia s/o Kunzang Dorjee Bhutia r/o P.S. & P.O. Rabangla, S. Sikkim --- Respondent 2) Tashi Wangdi Namna Bhutia Superintendent of Police at Police Head Quarter in Gangtok s/o Late Mrs. Chou Lhamu Bhutia (original trespasser on 13.09.1988) --- Respondent 3) C.P. Dhakal (SDM of Rabangla revenue office on 13.09.88) Deputy Commissioner The Election Commission Office Gangtok, E. Sikkim --- Respondent To The Honble Chief Justice of India and his companion Justices of the said Honble Court. The above named petitioner Ruth Karthak Lepchani Most Respectfully Sheweth : 1. That, vide ‘list of documents’ annexure P-1, pages 13 to 15 dated 12.10.10, order of the Hon’ble High Court in Sikkim in C. Rev. P. No. 02/10, listed on 7.07.10, by petitioner clearly stated “in annexure nos. 10 & 11from Cr. Writ Petition of 2011, filed on 5.11.11 in the Supreme Court of India”, arising out of impugned order, dated 12.10.10 for including in it, impugned order, dated 3.05.10 of Ld. District Court (S&W), of T.S. 04/10 vide order, dated 11.03.10, incorrectly incorporated as T.S. 01/09 of Civil Court (S&W), both at Namchi, S. Sikkim”. The Hon’ble High Court, inspite of awareness of T.S. 04/10 vide C. Rev. P. 02/10 directed in order 12.10.10 to Ld. District & Session Court (S&W) to pass final order definitely from T.S. 01/09, followed with decree and compliance report to the Hon’ble High Court. The Ld. District Judge (S&W) disobeyed and compounded the error with another and an even bigger error, vide order, dated 20.04.11 from T.S. 04/10 r/w T.S. 06/10, for hearing on Order VIII, Rule 7, r/w Order XV, Rule 2 (1) and another on Order XXVI, Rule 9 both of CPC, for enquiry commission from T.S. 06/10, order, dated 19.08.10 in Civil Court (E), inspite for judicial enquiry by defendant no. 1, Ruth Karthak Lepchani, from written statement, dated 30.07.07 in T.S 04/07 in Civil Court (S) at Namchi without first, for hearing of counter reply by petitioner/defendant no.1, vide order, dated 28.09.10 in T.S. 06/10 non sequitur from Ld. Civil Court (E), at Gangtok and dated 25.09.12 from Ld. District Court (S&W) in T.S. 04/10, non-sequitur; all the courts of Sikkim, did not follow diligently the established normal legal judicial procedures in a manner known to law; for the present chaos, denying justice vide Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India to the Writ Petitioner. This is a case about ‘trial in jeopardy’, impossible to maintain with all its errors of omissions selectively and differently in mistrials, starting with T.S. 04/07 in Civil Court (S); filed on 26.04.07. The entire court procedures following haywire, in such manner, unknown to law. 2. That, vide annexure P-2, pages 16 to 33 for certified court copies of petition, dated 23.06.11, in T.S. 03/11 from District Court (N&E) for 36 pages; only 2 page order and petition of 16 pages including annexures were supplied. But really for 20 pages with 4 pages removed by Ld. District Judge Spl. Div. II (N&E) at Gangtok, Session Judge Mrs. Lakchung Sherpa; the removed 4 pages found in o/o 309/judl/HCS, dated 21.07.11 for 22 pages including 2 page order; from where will the other 14 pages be found; u/s 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for 18 pages only, including order of 2 pages. 3. That, vide annexure P-3 pages 34 to 86 of T.S. 09/11, for denying to hear petitions, dated 22.12.11 in 40 pages including annexures R-1 to R-9 and 10.04.12 in 6 pages, by the petitioner / defendant no.1, both petitions in T.S. 09/11 from the Ld. Civil Judge (E) and Ld. District & Session Court (N&E), both at Gangtok, transferred to the Hon’ble High Court of S. Sikkim at Gangtok, vide Tr. P (C) no. 01/12 in orders, dated 4.07.12 and 13.08.12 from petition, dated 13.08.12 by respondent no.1/defendant no.1, Ruth Karthak Lepchani of Sikkim. The Hon’ble High Court declaring all her petitions of ‘no consequence’ the same as not entertained, all unheard. Thereby denying the petitioner her legal right to place before the court, questions of law and questions of fact; the same as, preventing any party to a suit from presenting their arguments and defence, vide Order XIV, Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, also denying her to recuse, vide impugned order, dated 13.08.12. This is illegal and ultra vires, repugnant to law (inviting the wrath of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India) from annexure R-3 and R-4 in pages 54 to 58 from petition dated 22.12.11, page 2 and annexure R-6 (page 26) removed from certified true copies, but found in certified court copies of petition, dated 10.04.12. The written reply by petitioner to petition by plaintiff, dated 10.04.12 denied without incorporating in the order, dated 4.07.12 in the Hon’ble High Court, as well as, in orders, dated 3.09.12 and 25.09.12 in the Court of District Judge (S&W) in T.S. 04/10, non sequitur, u/s 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 4. That, vide annexure P-4, pages 87 to 96 containing correspondences, dated 22.02.12, 5.03.12, 15.03.12, 3.04.12 and 4.04.12 in total 10 pages, explaining case file no. CIC/SM/A/2011/000789, dated 22.02.12 with reply by petitioner and impugned RTI exparte order, wherein it is stated all informations from Form ‘A’, dated 5.08.10 and annexure ‘E’, dated 4.10.10 are to be found from final order 7.01.09 of SLP no. 3831/07; thereby implying final order, dated 7.01.09 was incomplete and not the full justice; without any case filed by petitioner in RTI at New Delhi. After 2nd appeal by the appellant/writ petitioner, dated 10.02.11, after reply by Sri Sunil Thomas, Asst. Registrar of the Supreme Court, dated 18.11.10 in reply to RTI 1st appeal of annexure ‘E’; vide reply, by petitioner, dated 4.04.12, to the impugned order, dated 15.03.12 with no reply whatsoever, nor A/D form returned by Singtam post office. The mandatory reply within 45 days u/s 19(6) of RTI Act 2005 to the 2nd appeal, dated 10.02.11, to Asst. Registrar; materialized only vide reply, dated 29.03.12 of SLP 3831/07, D no. 1535/2007/Sc/XIV only after Cr. W.P. of 2011, dated 5.11.11; in a totally irresponsibile twisted whimsical manner. Ruth Karthak Lepchani Vrs. the State of Sikkim & Ors. Union of India (Rly) & Anr. Replied to it by appellant / writ petitioner on 25.04.12 in 5 pages by regd. letter; A/D form was returned on 29.06.12, without signature, seal or date of delivery, followed with a 2nd letter, dated 7.08.12 by regd. post, A/D form not returned nor reply, to date. The Cr. W.P. of 2011, filed on 5.11.11 is outside the jurisdiction of SLP 3831/07, which was over Sikkim State terrorism, vide final order, dated 7.01.09. All the Learned Courts were aware of the property of the writ petitioner ,vide RTI at Gangtok, dated 9.03.10 in form ‘A’ from sl. no.1, and annexure ‘E’, dated 18.08.10, from annexures 9,12 & 16 in Cr. Writ Petition No. of 2011 filed on 5.11.11. 5. That, letters, dated 22.10.10 by Revenue Office at Rabangla, S. Sikkim and impugned final order, dated 5.11.10 by RTI at Gangtok, to obtain information regarding boundaries of late Mrs. Chou Lhamu Bhutia from Civil Court (E) at Gangtok in T.S. 06/10, regarding information in Form ‘A’ dated 9.03.10 to RTI at Gangtok in E. Sikkim, with reply, to impugned order, dated 3.11.10 and notice 22.10.10, by Appellant/Writ Petitioner to RTI, dated 26.11.10, not entertained and returned to her. All letters of 2012 by RTI at New Delhi-66 and Asst. registrar of the Supreme Court, regarding SLP 3831/07 were distractions, to confuse the writ petitioner after Cr. W.P. of 2011, dated 5.11.11. These, letters notices and orders of 2012 of RTI, have nothing to do with the trespass of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 or in SLP 3831/07 final judgement order, dated 7.01.09, contained in Cr. W.P. of 2011 by the writ petitioner, to be tagged with this Cr. W.P. of 2012. These Criminal Writ Petitions of 2011 and 2012 by the petitioner are outside the jurisdictions of both SLP 3831/07 order, dated 7.01.09 in page 192 of annexure no. 13 from Cr. W.P No. of 2011 still pending for listing , hearing and disposal and RTI appeals at New Delhi in Form ‘A’ and annexure ‘E’, dated 5.08.10 and 4.10.10, respectively. All information, contained from petition in ‘list of documents’ regarding sl. no. 3(a) of annexure P-3, regarding T.S. 09/11 in annexure R-9 of petition, dated 22.12.11 in Civil Court (E), and also from petition, dated 14.12.10 in T.S. 04/10 r/w T.S. 06/10, in annexure A-6 from in the Ld. District Court (S&W), at Namchi, S. Sikkim and in annexure A-5, both from Cr. W.P. of 2011 of 5.11.11, from annexure no. 13 in pages 195 to 218 for counter reply, dated 28.09.10, denied hearing in all courts of Sikkim. The above notice, order and correspondences of RTI and Asst Registrar , will not stand upto the scrutiny of law and are ultra vires. For reply to letter by regd. post A/D, by petitioner, dated 25.04.12, to order of SLP/3831/07 from Asst. Registrar from D No. 1535/2007/SC/ XIV Supreme Court of India, New Delhi in response to 2nd appeal, dated 10.02.11 by appellant to RTI for mandatory reply within 45 days u/s 19(6) of RTI Act 22 of 2005, dated 29.03.12, disregarding case No. CIC/SM/A/2011/00789, and order, dated 15.03.12. The Cr. W.P. of 2011, dated 5.11.11 is not within the jurisdiction of SLP 3831/07 which was for Sikkim Government state terrorism, long past, no connection with the same, vide final order, dated 7.01.09, for petitioner to pursue her cases in other forums of law. With another reply letter by Writ Petitioner to Asst. Registrar by regd. post, dated 7.08.12; A/D form not returned to her to date, nor replied to. The rule of law is non existence, vide Indian Post Office Act, 1898 u/s 49 (b), 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 vide annexure no. 16 of Cr. W.P No. of 2011. All her petitions in all forums of justice in Sikkim are of ‘no consequence’ in contempt of Supreme Court final order, dated 7.01.09; thereby denying the petitioner her legal right to defence, to protect her court registered property, vide Article 14 and 21. 6. That, vide annexure P-5 pages 97 to 106 containing correspondences, dated 29.03.12, 25.04.12, 4.08.12 and 7.08.12 in total 10 pages, regarding fictitious notice by Asst. Registrar of the Supreme Court in response to the 2nd appeal in RTI, dated 10.02.11 is mentioned in above paragraph nos. 4 and 5. When petitions by Writ Petitioner in all the Civil Court of Sikkim are ignored, of ‘no consequence’ in orders, dated 4.07.12 and 13.08.12 and threats of arrest and jail to petitioner several times in open court, without incorporating the same in orders, for raising questions of law to protect her legal rights to property and life; and attempt to transfer her property to two separate respondent trespassers with illegal orders; then her human rights are violated, vide u/s 219 IPC,1860. 7. That, vide annexure P-6 pages 107 to 122 of High Court in Tr. (C). P. no. 01/2012 with order, dated 4.07.12 of 3 pages and order, dated 13.08.12 of 4 pages with petition of 9 pages in all 16 pages, with relevant provisions of law raised by her in petition, dated 13.08.12 were of ‘no consequence’ incorporated in order of same date, also denying her, legal right to recuse, on flimsy grounds, illegal and ultra vires. 8. That, vide annexure P-7 pages 123 to 138 of T.S. 04/10 non sequitur in the Ld. District Court (S&W) by transfer from the Hon’ble High Court, gave rise to cases at kangaroo courts, dated 3.09.12 and 25.09.12 of petitions by defendant no.1/petitioner were all of ‘no consequence’, compelling her to submit a 1 page hand written signed deposition on 25.09.12; recusing in both petition and application of same date for transfer to the High Court of Sikkim; and Order XI rule 16 of CPC, not obeyed in orders dated 3.09.12 and 25.09.12 in T.S. 04/10, non-sequitur vide u/s 219 of IPC, 1860. 9. That, vide annexure P-8 page 139 of 1 page circular from secretariat of the President of India office, forwarding the 81 page Justice Petition with documents to the SCI, dated 7.09.12. 10. That, vide orders 4.07.12 and 13.08.12 in the Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim, arising from Tr.(C).P. no. 01/2012, transfer no. 2595/judl/HCS, dated 25.04.12, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petitioner’s petition, 13.08.12, together with the provisions of law, raised by the petitioner, together with her petitions in T.S. 09/11, dated 22.12.11 and 10.04.12, of ‘no consequence’ and denied her the legal right to recuse from the case, mentioned in the petition and prayers, incorporated in the order dated 13.08.12; giving rise to cases at Kangaroo courts with sting operations, denying petitioner the legal right to defend herself and property, vide Articles 14 and 21 and Order XIV, rule 1 of CPC, 1908 r/w u/s 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Furthermore in order, dated 4.07.12; from the onset, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Sikkim, Sri Permod Kohli with glaring hostility to the petitioner/respondent no.1 – who is a docile, primitive tribal of the Lepcha race, ill and very senior citizen, nearing 80 years and frail – threatening her with arrest and jail, several times in full open court; for what crime!; did not incorporate the same in the order, but mentioned in her petition, dated 13.08.12; By denying her the legal rights by law and as such, no fair procedure was followed in a manner known to law. Both the orders are bad in law. 11. That, by an attempt to pass an illegal order to seize the Writ Petitioner’s property by Tr.(C).P. no. 2936/judl/HCS, dated 16.08.12, to award them to two trespassers, respondent nos. 1 and 2, vide Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC, infructious, vide Order VIII Rule 7 of CPC, in place of judicial or CBI enquiry is denying her the right to property and livelihood, vide article 21, and also repeated to her, by several trial judicial officers of the courts from T.S. 04/07 to T.S. 04/10 r/w T.S. 09/11 non-sequitur. Once the illegal order is passed, then on appeal, it will be over ruled with “we find no reason to interfere with order passed by the lower court. “Also mentioned in petition, dated 13.08.12. Hence, the orders dated 4.07.12 and 13.08.12 of the High Court of Sikkim are bad in law. 12. That, despite SLP 3831/07, final judgement order, dated 7.01.09; for “reliefs ….substantially granted”, are grossly contempted by all the judicial courts of Sikkim upto orders, dated 12.10.10, 4.07.12 and 13.08.12 in the Hon’ble High Court for cases T.S. 04/07 to T.S. 04/10 non-sequitur, for all court proceedings be held in abeyance with an injunction to the Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim, till final judgement order of cases of Cr. Writ Petition of 2011, filed on 5.11.11 and this 2nd Cr. Writ Petition of 2012, to be tagged together. All the courts in Sikkim are happily wedded to Kangaroo courts by haywire marriage in sting operations; calling for indepth inquiry by the CBI or judicial commission in open court under Article 225, 226 & 227, for truthful report to the Supreme Court of India for suo motu justice, to rectify this ‘trial in jeopardy’. 13. That, paragraphs 1 to 12 pertaining to annexures P-1 to P-8 from Index, are the grounds for prayers in the instant Cr. Writ Petition. 14. That, there is no petition filed in the Supreme Court of India on the same matter by Criminal Writ Petitioner or any other courts. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to list the Criminal Writ Petition of 2011, continuing into 2012, still pending MAIN PRAYER In view of the aforesaid premises and in the interest of justice, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, thereby directing an enquiry by an independent agency like Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any other agency regarding the facts mentioned in the Writ Petition and passing an appropriate order for protecting the petitioner’s rights and property which is being encroached and usurped under the garb of judicial orders. AND Any other or further order/orders which this Hon’ble court may deemed fit and proper; may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. AND For this act of kindness the writ Petitioner, shall in duty bound pray forever. Filed by (A.HALIM) Constituted Attorney for New Delhi Ruth Karthak Lepchani Dated. 09.11.2012 Writ Petitioner VERIFICATION The Constituted Attorney for Ruth Karthak Lepchani, Writ Petitioner, humbly affirms the submission of details, are true to the facts of documents in annexures P-1 to P-8 from the courts of Sikkim and RTI, both at Gangtok and New Delhi-66, and correspondence with Asst. Registrar of the Supreme Court of India at New Delhi, dated 29.03.12. I sign this verification on the 9th day of November, 2012 at New Delhi. Deponent (A. Halim) Constituted Attorney for Ruth Karthak Lepchani Writ Petitioner In the Supreme Court of India (Criminal Original Jurisdiction) Writ Petition (Criminal) No……2012 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) In the matter of : Ruth Karthak Lepchani r/o P.S. and P.O. Singtam, E. Sikkim --- Justice Petitioner Versus Chewang Dorjee Bhutia & Ors respondents AFFIDAVIT I, A.HALIM, S/o Late Abdul Halim, r/o P.S. and P.O. Singtam, E. Sikkim, presently at New Delhi , do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 1. That the deponent is constituted attorney of the Petitioner in the above captioned matter and is fully conversant with the facts & circumstances of above mentioned case, hence competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That accompanying Writ Petition has been drafted by the deponent himself and the facts mentioned therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 3. That the annexures annexed with the Writ Petition are true copies of their respective originals. DEPONENT VERIFICATION I, the deponent above named do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1 to 2 of the present affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed thereform. Verified at New Delhi on this 09th day of November 2012 DEPONENT
Posted on: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:09:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015