56

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ________OF2016

IN THE MATTER OF :
X _________ S/o _________R/o ___________ PETITIONER
VERSUS
Muncipal Corporation of Delhi,
Through Its Commissioner … RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

FOR ISSUANCE OF PREROGATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS
OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT
Respectfully showeth :
1. That the petitioner is a citizen of India residing at_______. The respondent is Muncipal
Corporation of Delhi having their office at Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
BRIEF FACTS :-
2. That the petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal appointments of daily wage workers by the
M.C.D. office in defiance of Notification No. MCD/LF/01-103 dated 1.2.2014 which
requires the M.C.D. to appoint only those person as Daily wage worker who are below
the age of 30 years as an 01.10.2014. The said Notification was issued after it was duly
approved.
3. That the petitioner is of 27 yrs of age and was working as a daily wage worker, when on
1.12.2014 his services were terminated without notice/prior intimation. The Petitioner
during his service worked to the satisfaction of his superiors. The respondent has
appointed Sh. Ompal, Sh. Ram and Smt Maya in defiance of the said notification
M.C.D./LF/01-/03 at 01.02.2014 as all the three person namely Om Pal, Sh. Ram and
Smt. Maya are more than 30 years of age as on 01.10.2014. The about named persons
were appointed in utter disregard of Notification. The respondent,however, removed the
petitioner from service although petitioner met the requirements.. That the Petitioner
made representation to the respondent vide letter dated 1.12.2014, 2.1.2015 and also met
the commissioner personally and apprised them of his grievance, however nothing
materialized .
4. That in spite of oral and written representations the respondent have not cared to act and
are maintaining stoic silence on the whole issue.
5. That the petitioner have thus approached the Hon‟ble court on amongst others the
following grounds
GROUNDS:
(a) Because the action of the respondent is contrary to law and good conscience.
 57

(b) Because the action of the respondent is arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and
unconstitutional.
(c) Because respondent have no right to play with the career of the petitioner.
(d) Because the petitioner was removed from job inspite of the fact that he was below age
and fulfilled all requirements.
(e) Because respondent appointed. Sh. Ompal, Sh. Ram and Smt Maya despite their being
overage and not meeting requirements of Notification No. MCD/LF/01-103 dated
1.2.2014.
(f) Because the action of the respondent is bad in law
(g) That the Petitioner craves, leave of this Honorable Court to add, amend, alter the grounds
raised in this petition.
6. That the cause of action in present case arose on 1.2.2014 when the respondent brought
out the Notification No. MCD/LF/01-103 dated 1.2.2014., it further arise when on
1.12.2014 the petitioner was removed from job inspite of the fact that he was below age
and fulfilled all requirements, it further arose when respondent appointed. Sh. Ompal, Sh.
Ram and Smt Maya despite their being overage and not meeting requirements of
Notification No. MCD/LF/01-103 dated 1.2.2014, it further arose when representations
were made to respondent orally and in writing on 1.12.2014, and 2.1.2015. The cause of
action further arose when respondent did not act inspite of the fact having brought to
their notice. The cause of action is continuing one.
7. That the Petitioner has no other alternative efficacious remedy except to approach this
Hon‟ble Court by way of this writ petition
8. That the petitioner has not filed any other similar writ petition either before this Hon‟ble
Court or before the Supreme Court of India.
9. That there has been no undue delay in filing of this petition.
10. That the honorable court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
11. That the requisite court fee of Rs. 50/- has been affixed on this petition.
PRAYER :
The petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to :-
(a) issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing
the Respondents to cancel the illegal appointment made in disregard of Notification No.
MCD/LF/01-103 dated 1.2.2003 : and
(b) issue necessary directions to appointment of petitioner and
(c) issue any other further order/orders or direction/directions as this Hon‟ble Court may
deem fit and appropriate no the facts and the circumstances of this case.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER ABOVENAMED SHALL EVER
PRAY.
Delhi PETITIONER
Date________________ THROUGH ADVOCATE
[NOTE : The petition will be supported by an affidavit]
58

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.______ OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mr._____
s/o Sh. ______,
r/o ______ …..Petitioner

Versus
1. Union of India,
Through
Secretary to the Govt. of India
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-11001

2. The Joint Secretary (PITNDPS),

to the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
Room No.26, Church Road,
R.F.A. Barracks,
New Delhi -110001

3. Director General,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Delhi Zonal Unit, B-3 & 4, 6th Floor,
Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 …..Respondents

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
SEEKING ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER AND/OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE
THEREOF, THEREBY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PLACE ON
RECORD THE DETENTION ORDER DATED 10.09.2013 PASSED IN RESPECT OF
THE PETITIONER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF THE PREVENTION OF
ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
ACT, 1988 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, ALONGWITH GROUNDS OF
DETENTION AND RELIED UPON DOCUMENTS AND SIMILAR MATERIAL IN
 59

RESPECT OF OTHER CO-ACCUSED PERSONS AND FURTHER SEEKING

ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND/OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER AND/OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE THEREOF, THEREBY
QUASHING THE SAID DETENTION ORDER PASSED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That, vide the present petition the petitioner is challenging detention order dated
10.09.2013 issued under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (in short Act) by the respondent no.2
against him, in respect of which he has recently come to know, when some officials,
claiming themselves to be police officials, visited his abovementioned premises in the
first week of this month for its execution. It is worth mentioning here that similar
detention orders were issued against even other co-accused persons, namely X and Y,
which have been revoked on the recommendation of the Advisory Board, who did not
find sufficient grounds for detention of those respective detenus. Copy of such a
detention order bearing No. U-11011/1/2012- PITNDPS dated 10.09.2013 qua Mr. X
is enclosed herewith as Annexure A. Copies of the grounds of detention passed in
support of that detention order alongwith the list of relied upon documents are also
enclosed herewith as Annexures B & C respectively.
2. That the allegations, as revealed from the grounds of detention in respect of his said
co-accused, are that the petitioner was involved with other accused persons, in the
activities of acquiring, possessing, hoarding, selling and exporting NDPS items. It is
respectfully submitted that all the allegations as made in the grounds of detention are
false, frivolous and motivated ones, which is also apparent from bare reading of
grounds of detention and the documents, said to be relied upon at the time of passing
the impugned detention order, since even as per those allegations the petitioner has
not committed any offence whatsoever under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (in short Act). It is further submitted that in order to falsely
implicate the petitioner in the matter he was forced /coerced to make certain
involuntary statements under section 67 of the Act, which have been duly retracted.
Not only this, it is respectfully submitted that, the petitioner is made to understand
that, even other co-accused were forced/coerced to make certain involuntary and
incorrect statements from which even they have retracted at the first available
opportunity.
3. That, the petitioner‟s case is fully covered by the exceptions, as laid down, by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Alka Subhash Gadia‟s case. It is respectfully submitted
that recently the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Deepak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra,
2010 (4) SCC (Cri) 122 has summarized the law on the issue as under:
(a) Five grounds mentioned in Alka Subhash Gadia case, on which Court can set
aside detention order at pre-execution stage, are illustrative and not exhaustive. It was
also reiterated that judgment of a court is not to be read mechanically as a Euclid‟s
theorem nor as if it were a statute, hence, cannot be constructed as such.
(b) It was held that entertaining petition against preventive detention order at pre-
execution stage should be an exception and not a general rule. However, if a person
60

against whom a preventive detention order is passed comes to court at pre-execution

stage and satisfies the court that such order is clearly illegal, there is no reason why
the court should stay its hands and compel him to go to jail even though he is bound
to be released subsequently because of illegality of such order. If a person, is sent to
jail, then even if he is subsequently released, his reputation may be irreparably
tarnished. Liberty of a persona is a precious fundamental right under article 21 and
should not be lightly transgressed.
(c) Non-placement of retractions of confessional statement and other relevant material
before detaining authority vitiates detention order even at pre-execution stage. Hence,
on facts, it was held that, as relevant materials were not placed before detaining
authority, it vitiated the detention order.
4. That, therefore, under these circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the
impugned detention order dated 10.09.2013 is highly illegal and a nullity in the eyes
of law and the same is liable to be quashed on the following amongst other grounds
which are without prejudice and in addition to each other.

GROUNDS
A. Because though the impugned detention order was passed on 10.09.2013, but till date
the same has not been executed, despite the fact that throughout this period the
petitioner was available at home and was attending all his daily routine activities. Not
only this, it is further respectfully submitted that, the petitioner was regularly
appearing before the Trial Court in the prosecution proceedings, launched at the
instance of the sponsoring authority. It is submitted that the long and undue delay in
execution of the impugned detention order creates doubt about the genuineness qua
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in detaining the petitioner
preventively. Therefore, in view of the exceptions of the Alka Subhash Gadia‟s case
the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed. Copies of the relevant order
sheet of the Trial Court in prosecution proceedings is enclosed herewith as Annexure
D.
B. Because the petitioner says and submits that the alleged incident took place on
23/24.10.11, however, no detention order was passed till 10.09.13, which clearly
shows that there has been long and undue delay in passing the impugned detention
order, which has snatched the nexus between the purpose of detention and the
allegations, as made in the grounds of detention. Therefore, it is apparent that the
detention order has been passed on stale incident and on this ground also the
impugned detention order is liable to be quashed, more particularly when similar
detention orders under similar circumstances have already been revoked by the
respondent no.2, on the recommendation of the Advisory Board, who did not find
sufficient cause for issuance of those detention orders. Therefore, in view of the
exceptions of the Alka Subhash Gadia‟s case the impugned detention order is liable to
be quashed on this ground also.
C. Because the petitioner says and submits that a bare perusal of the enclosed grounds of
detention clearly reflect that Sponsoring Authority did not place before the Detaining
 61

Authority following mentioned documents, which were very vital and material since
they could have influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority one way or the other
at the time of passing the impugned detention order. The Detaining Authority having
failed to apply its mind to those documents rendered the impugned detention order
illegal and void. These documents are as under:
It is submitted that in case these documents were placed before the Detaining
Authority they were relied upon material and as such ought to have been part of the
list of relied upon documents, which is not so. It is worth mentioning here that while
demanding those documents, being relied upon documents, petitioner‟s co-
accused/detenu had raised this ground in his representation dated 05.10.2013
(Annexure E). However, vide the memorandum dated 13.11.2013 (Annexure F), that
representation was rejected casually and mechanically, which clearly substantiates
abovementioned contention of the petitioner that the impugned detention order has
been rendered illegal and void on account of non-placement of those documents.
Therefore, in view of the exceptions of the Alka Subhash Gadia‟s case read with
above mentioned Deepak Bajaj‟s judgment, the impugned detention order is liable to
be quashed on this ground also.
D. Because similar detention orders passed in respect of other co-accused persons in the
matter have been found to be not issued for sufficient cause by the detaining authority
and, therefore, were revoked at the instance of the Advisory Board, consisting of
three Hon‟ble Judges of this Hon‟ble Court, by the respondent no.2. The petitioner is
made to understand that the ground for revoking the detention orders in those cases
was delay in passing the same. Under these circumstances, it is most humbly and
respectfully submitted that, if the detention order passed against the petitioner also
suffers from the same infirmity, no useful purpose would be serve by compelling him
to go to jail, even though he is bound to be released subsequently because of illegality
of such order. Therefore, it is respectfully prayed to this Hon‟ble Court that the
respondents may kindly be directed to place on record all the material pertaining to
this case, including the detention orders and their consequence in respect of other co-
accused persons, so that the true facts may be brought to the notice of this Hon‟ble
Court. Therefore, on this ground also the impugned detention order may kindly be
quashed.
E. Because the petitioner / detenu says and submits that there is no nexus between the
purpose of the detention and the allegations as made in the grounds of detention
which clearly shows non application of mind on the part of detaining authority.
Therefore on this ground also the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.
F. Because since the date of the passing of the impugned detention order, which is for a
period of one year only, the petitioner has not come to the adverse notice of any law
enforcing authority. Therefore, under these circumstances, purpose of the said
detention order has already been served and nothing would be achieved by sending
the petitioner into custody pursuant to the impugned detention order, which was
passed about more than 1 ½ year back for his detention for a period of one year. It is
respectfully submitted that, under these circumstances, purpose of passing the
62

impugned detention order is no more preventive. Therefore on this ground also the
impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.
G. Because the petitioner/ detenu is a poor person and has clean antecedents. Even in
this case he has been falsely implicated at the instance of the persons, inimical to him.
It is respectfully submitted that he is sole bread earner of his family, which includes
his old ailing parents, wife and minor children. It is further submitted that grave
injustice has been done to the petitioner by executing the impugned detention order,
which is even otherwise very draconian in nature, being violative of principles of
natural justice. It is submitted that, the impugned detention order is unconstitutional.
It is further respectfully submitted that initiation of mere prosecution proceedings
were sufficient to prevent the petitioner from indulging in the alleged prejudicial
activities. Therefore, on this ground also the impugned detention order is liable to be
quashed.
H. Because it is enjoined upon the respondents to show to this Hon‟ble Court that the
impugned detention order is in conformity with the provisions of Constitution and is
not illegal, failing which they would render the impugned detention order illegal and
void.
I. Because it is further enjoined upon the respondents to show to this Hon‟ble Court that
all the bare minimum safeguards, available in such kind of cases, seeking detention of
the persons without trial, have been followed, failing which they would render the
impugned detention order illegal and void.
J. Because the impugned detention order is not only contrary to the facts of the case but
also contrary to the settled principles of law.

5. That, the annexures annexed with this petition are true copies of their originals.

6. That, no similar petition has been filed either before this Hon‟ble Court or any other
Court including the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India.

7. That, the petitioner has no other efficacious remedy other than to file the present
petition.

PRAYER
In view of foregoing it is most respectfully prayed that:

(i) a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the
nature thereof may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to place on record the
abovementioned detention order, issued under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic
in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (in short Act) by the respondent
no.2 against the petitioner dated 10.09.2013 alongwith the grounds of detention and relied
upon documents, besides the similar material in respect of other co-accused/ detenus, who
were detained earlier on the same set of facts and circumstances; and
 63

(ii) further a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction in
the nature thereof may kindly be issued thereby quashing the abovementioned detention order
dated 10.09.2013, passed by the respondent no.2; and/or
(iii) any other order, as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of
the case may also be passed in the matter in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondents.

Petitioner
New Delhi
Dated: Through:
Advocates
64

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2016
(From the Impugned Judgment and Final Order dated 19.12.2014 passed by the High Court
for the State of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.M. No. 8507-C-OF 2002
in R.A.No. 14-C of 2002 in R.S.A. No. 2543 of 2001).

IN THE MATTER OF:

Manohar …. EXPECTED PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Improvement Trust Phagwara.
Distt. Kapurthala, Punjab …. EXPECTED RESPONDENT/ CAVEATOR

CAVEAT UNDER ORDER XV OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES 2013

To,
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi

Sir,
Let nothing be done in the above mentioned matter without notice to the undersigned.
The parties as arrayed in the High Court are the same in this Hon‟ble Court.

Filed on ___________________ Yours faithfully

Advocate-on-Record for Caveator

 65

Article 136 0f the Constitution of India vests the Supreme Court with the power to
grant Special leave to appeal against any decree,order or,judgement in any cause or
matter passed by any court or tribunal in the country.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORDER XXI OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES 2013
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2016
(Arising out of Judgment and order dated 14.12.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 5427 of
2004 by Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad)

Between Position of the Parties

In the High Court In this court
Vasant S/o Shankar Bhavsar
Age: Major, Occu:
Residing at & Post Faijpur,
Taluka Yawal, Dist: Jalgaon. … Petitioner Petitioner
AND
1. D _____ S/o _____________ … Contesting Contesting
R/o _____________________, … Responden Respondent
Taluka: Bhusawal, Dist: ____

2. H ______ S/o _______________, … Contesting Contesting

R/o ___________________, … Respondent Respondent
Taluka: Bhusawal, Dist: ____

3. C_____ S/o ______________ … Contesting Contesting

R/o _____________________ … Respondent Respondent
Taluka: Bhusawal, Dist: ____

4. P ____ S/o _______________

R/o:_____________________, … Contesting Contesting
Dist:____________________… Respondent Respondent

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
To
The Hon‟ble Chief Justice of India and His
Companion Justice of the Supreme Court of India.
66

The humble petition of the petitioner above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present petition has been filed seeking special leave to appeal in the final
judgment and order dated 14.9.2012.201508 of the Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature of
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Civil Writ Petition No.5427 of 2004 titled “Vasant S/o Sh.
Shankar Bhavsar Versus Digambar & Ors.” which was dismissed by the Hon‟ble High Court.
2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
That the following questions of law arise for consideration herein:
a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon‟ble High Court was
justified in dismissing the Civil Writ Petition
3. Declaration in terms of Rule 4 (2):
That the Petitioner states that no other petition for special leave to appeal has been
filed by him against the judgment and order impugned herein.
4. Declaration in terms of Rule 5:
The Petitioner states that the Annexures filed along with the special leave petition are
true copies of the pleading‟s and documents which formed part of the records of the case in
the court below against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.
5. GROUNDS:
That the special leave to appeal is sought on the following grounds:
I) Because the High Court had erred in passing the impugned judgment.
II) Because the High Court could not have allowed the errors to prevail by dismissing
the writ petition.
III)Because the impugned judgments and orders of Hon‟ble High Court and of
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 24.10.1997, of the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Bhusawal dated 31.3.1997, of Tehsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Yawal, dated
1.10.1996 suffer from error apparent on the face of record.
IV)Because the reasoning of the authorities mentioned above that the will executed by
Vishnu on 7.1.1968, the original tenant and owner under the Bombay Tenancy Act; and the
registered Hakka Sod Patrak dated 18.12.1981 executed by Digambar S/o Vishnu do not
come in the definition of transfer as envisaged in Section –43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, is
unsustainable in law.
V)Because with respect to the Authorities below that the incidents of transfer
mentioned in Section 43 of Bombay Tenancy Act viz. sale, Gift, Exchange, mortgage, lease,
assignment or partition are not the only incidents of transfer to be considered in reference to
Section 43 of the Act but they are only mentioned by way of examples. It does not mean the
 67

other incidents of transfer like will or Hakka Sod Patrak do not amount to transfer and are not
to be considered by the authorities under the Bombay Tenancy Act.
VI) Because the ground No. V above is further supported by other provisions of
Bombay Tenancy Act. For example Section 32-R lays down that purchaser U/s. 32 of the Act
is to be evicted if he fails to cultivate land personally. Section 43 of the Act lay down
restrictions on the purchaser not to transfer the purchased land under the Act without the
sanction of the Collector. Section 43 (2) of the Act says “any transfer or partition of land in
contravention of Sub-Section (1) shall be invalid”. Section 70 (mb) lays down a duty on
Mamlatdar to decide U/s. 48B or 84 C whether a transfer or acquisition of land is invalid and
to dispose off land as provided in Section 84 C. Section 83 A (1) lays down that no person
shall acquire land by transfer which is invalid under any of the provisions of the Act. Section
83 A(2) lays down that a persons acquiring land by invalid transfer shall be liable to
consequences as laid down in Section 84 or 84 C of the Act. Section 84 of the Act provides
for summary eviction of unauthorised or wrongful occupant of the land. Section 84 C of the
Act gives authority to the Mamlatdar to hold enquiry of any such illegal transfer and to decide
it accordingly. Section 84 C (3) lays down that land declared to be invalidly transferred to
vest in the State. Section 84 C (1) gives the power to the Collector to dispose the land which
are declared to be invalidly transferred.
VII) Because in the Section 32 R, 43 (1), 43 (2), Section 70 (mb), Section 83 A (1), 83
A (2), Section 84, 84 C, 84 C(3) and 84 CC (1) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, at many places
the words “any transfer” are used as these sections are having wider scope covering all types
of transfers, and not only to the six kinds of transfers mentioned in Section 43 of the Act.
Therefore the reasoning of these authorities below that the will and Hakka Sod Patrak are not
covered by Section 43 of the Act do not stand good in law.
VIII) Because the language and effect of the will and registered Hakka Sod Patrak are
to be taken into consideration in reference to Section 43 and other provisions mentioned
above of Bombay Tenancy Act. The three Authorities have failed to consider the effect of two
documents viz, will and Hakka Sod Patrak.
IX) Because the will and registered Hakka Sod Patrak have resulted into permanent
transfer in perpetuity of this land purchased by the tenant U/s 32 of the Act, without sanction
from the Collector U/s. 43 of the Act and therefore the application filed U/s 43 read with
section 84 C of the Act was liable to be allowed completely.
X) Because the very intention of the legislature in putting restriction on a tenant –
purchaser under the Bombay Tenancy Act to transfer the land is that the tenant who has
purchased the land U/s 32 of should be owner and cultivator and the unconcerned third
persons should not be benefited. Obviously this is because of the social reform to be achieved
by implementing Bombay Tenancy Act effectively. This intention is defeated because of the
judgments and orders of the three authorities below after remand.
XII) Because the definition of transfer as given in Section 5 Chapter II in Transfer of
property Act is totally neglected by the learned Three authorities below.
XII) Because the registered Hakka Sod Patrak (relinquishment Deed) is practically
nothing but a sale as defined in Section 54, Chapter III of the Transfer of property Act
68

because Digamber s/o Original tenant purchaser has accepted a consideration of Rs.25,000/-
from the transferee Govinda Telele.
XIII) Because that the original document i.e. the Will and Hakka Sod Patrak are never
produced by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in evidence. In the absence of these documents the
findings of authorities below that the will and Hakka Sod Patrak do not come in the definition
of transfer are not justified in law.
XIV) Because the families of Vishnu and Govinda were never joint families. Except the
contention of respondents no.1 to 4 no evidence has come up on record. Therefore transfer of
land to Govinda is hit by the provisions of Bombay Tenancy Act.
XV) Because respondent No.2 Harchand S/o Govinda Telele in his deposition recorded
before Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal Yawal, recorded after remand by
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Mumbai in his examination in chief has said that the status of
joint family has come to an end in the year 1959. Therefore the contention of the petitioner
that the families of Vishnu and Govinda were never joint is supported by evidence of
Harchand.
XVI) Because the learned authorities below have not taken into consideration all the
circumstances of this case while deciding the matter.
XVII) Because the prayer of petitioner that the land in question should have been
allotted to him as he has no other land to cultivate should have been granted U/s 32 P (2) (b)
of the Bombay Tenancy Act.
XVIII) Because Digamber, son of original Tenang Vishnu Telele, did not file any
restoration application to set aside the judgment and order dated 5.1.1993 in Tenancy Case
No. 68 of 1982, nor he filed any Revision before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Mumbai
against judgment and order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhusawal dated 16.5.1994. Therefore,
the judgment and order dated 5.1.1993 in Tenancy Case No. 68 of 1982 have become final
against him. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 who are the heirs of transferred from Vishnu and
Digamber, have also all rights, title and interest in the land.
XIX) Because the judgments and orders of three authorities below are contrary to law
and good conscience.
XX) The petitioner crave, leave of this Honorable Court to add, amend, alter the
grounds raised in this petition
6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
A. That the petitioner apprehends that the respondents may sell, alienate or part with
the property illegally.
7. MAIN PRAYER:
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may kindly be pleased to:
a) Grant the special leave petition from the final judgment and order dated 14.12.2015
of the Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Civil Writ
 69

Petition No.5427 of 2015 titled “Vasant S/o Sh. Shankar Bhavsar Versus Digambar & Ors.”
And
b)Be pleased further to pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the
facts, reasons and other attending circumstances of the case.
PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
(a) It is prayed that interim directions be issued to the Respondent may be directed not
to sell, alienate or part with the property. Gat No. 2752 comprising of Survey No. 638/1,
638/3-A, 639/1, 639/3 area measuring 2 Hectares 87 Ares situated at village Nhavi, Taluka
Yawal.
(b)Be pleased further to pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the
facts, reasons and other attending circumstances of the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL EVER REMAIN
GRATEFUL AS IN DUTY BOUND
Drawn and Filed by:
New Delhi
Date of drawn : Advocate for the Petitioner
Date of filing:
[NOTE : To be supported by an affidavit]

*****
70

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ___________ OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF :

X __________________ …PETITIONER
VERSUS
Y __________________ … RESPONDENT

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
Y, _______ S/o ______R/o ______ presently at Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and
state as follows :
1. That the Deponent is respondent in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition and as such
fully acquainted with the facts circumstances and records of the case. Hence competent to
swear and affirm the present affidavit.
2. That before giving parawise reply to the Special Leave Petition the Deponent craves
leave of this Hon‟ble Court to bring certain facts on record which have not been mentioned in
the Special Leave Petition by Petitioners.
3. That pursuant to the direction given by Hon‟ble Single Judge, affirmed by the
Division Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court, the Deponent has been reinstated and has been
working with effect from 1-6-2015. In these circumstances, the Special Leave Petition filed
by Petitioners hereinabove has become infructuous and is liable to be rejected.
Even otherwise the said Special Leave Petition is not maintainable as Petitioners before
the Division Bench have never raised any point which has been raised by Petitioners before
this Hon‟ble Court. Before the Division Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court the Petitioners had
contended only very limited point and rather they sought clarification in LPA of judgment
and order passed by Hon‟ble Single Judge. The Division Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court
disposed of the LPA accordingly. On this ground alone the Special Leave Petition is liable to
be rejected.
PARAWISE REPLY
1. In reply to paragraph-1 of the Special Leave Petition, it is submitted that there is no
merit in the Special Leave Petition filed by Petitioners and as such the SLP deserves to be out
rightly rejected with costs in favour of the Deponent.
2. In reply to paragraph-2, the plea taken by Petitioners has no legal force and hence the
Petitioners are not entitled to any relief in terms of misplaced assertions under paragraphs A
and B. As regards assertions under sub paragraph C, it is most respectfully submitted that
such a stand of Petitioners is in itself contradictory with their pleadings inasmuch as that they
 71

have stated that since 42nd Amendment to Article 311 of the Constitution of India is not
applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, therefore, the opportunity by way of show
cause notice in terms of decision of the Petitioners for removal of Deponent from Government
service could not be issued. Such pleadings on the face of record do not entitle the Petitioners
for any relief.
3. Paragraph-3 of the Special Leave does not merit any reply.
4. Paragraph-4 of the Special Leave does not call for any reply.
5A. In reply to Ground-A, the assertion of Petitioners holds no legal force and as such the
Petitioners because of their conduct as highlighted heretofore are not entitled to any relief
because of the established fact that all the issues have been minutely and carefully gone into
by the Hon‟ble High Court at its Single Bench level, which on facts and law, did not warrant
any interference by the Division Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court.
B. In reply to paragraph-B it is most respectfully submitted that without affording due
opportunity, the Petitioners could not be permitted to remove Deponent from Government
service and that too by an incompetent authority, namely, Petitioner No. 4, who is neither the
appointing authority of Deponent nor any such powers stood delegated to him. It is in this
context most respectfully submitted that avoid action by an incompetent authority remains
void and illegal and void order cannot be resuscitated.
C. In reply to this Ground, it is most respectfully submitted that this aspect of the matter
stood elaborately dealt with by the Hon‟ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and as such
no issue survives and hence the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief much less in terms of
misplaced assertions to the Petitioners. When the Petitioners had full knowledge that the
Deponent had applied for leave on health grounds and also that the records of Petitioners did
establish that mother of the Deponent was suffering from cancer, still the Petitioners could not
have treated the Deponent as on unauthorized absence. The Petitioners were expected to
conduct themselves as custodian and guardians of their employees but unfortunately, they
acted in violation of settled procedure and rules for satisfaction of their personal ego,
administrative obstinacy and for their personal ends. Hence, they are not entitled to any relief.
D. In reply to Ground-D, the assertions of Petitioners under this Ground are also not
tenable because action of Petitioners in transferring the Deponent firstly to Nowshera and
then to Amritsar or Chandigarh was based merely to satisfy their ego, and was attributed to
extraneous considerations and that is why the Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 have been resorting to
such illegal practices with oblique motive of harassing the Deponent and likewise other
employees including one Mr. Pradeep Sharma, as submitted heretofore.
6. In reply to paragraph-7 of the Special Leave Petition, the prayer of Petitioners under
this paragraph cannot be granted in the light of facts and circumstances submitted heretofore.
The petition of the Petitioners deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs in favour of the
Deponent.
7. In reply to paragraph-8 of the Special Leave Petition, the Petitioners are not entitled
to any interim relief as prayed for and their prayer to this effect also merits to be rejected out
rightly in interest of justice.
72

VERIFICATION
The above-named Deponent do hereby verify and declare that the facts stated in the
foregoing paragraphs of my affidavit are true to my knowledge and nothing of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed there from.

Verified at Delhi on this the 05th day of January, 2010.

DEPONENT

*****
 73

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICATION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No._________ OF 2016

(FROM THE FINAL JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED _____ PASSED BY THE
HIGH COURT OF _________ AT ________ IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ___ OF _____)

IN THE MATTER OF:-

N. _________ S/o _____________,
R/o _________________________
lodged in Model Jail, Chandigarh … PETITIONER/ORIGINAL ACCUSED

VERSUS

1. Union Territory of ______

through Home Secretary,
Secretariat, ____________ … RESPONDENT

2. S Singh S/o ___ R/o _____. … PROFORMA RESPONDENT/

ORIGINAL ACCUSED.
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE
136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
To,
The Hon‟ble Chief Justice of India
And his Companion Justices of
The Supreme Court of India
The humble petition of the
Above named petitioner
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
1. That the present Special leave Petition (Criminal.) is filed against order dated
26.11.2015 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal Appeal No.
305-DB of 2013, titled “Subeg Singh & Anr., versus The State Union Territory of
Chandigarh” whereby the Hon‟ble Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
2. That the present petition raises an important question of law for consideration before
this Hon‟ble Court. _______________________-
74

3. BRIEF FACTS
On the night intervening 11/12.2.2013 murder of Shri Bachna Ram, who was a cook and
domestic servant of Shri Devinder Singh Brar, resident of house No. 53, Sector 28-A
Chandigarh, was committed in the kitchen of his house when Shri Devinder Singh Brar and
his sister Smt. Gurmail Kaur were in Aurngabad. The F.I.R. was registered on the statement
of Capt Jagat Pal Singh PW-11 who resides in the nmeighborhood of house No. 53. The
offence came into light when Smt. Babita the sweeper of House No. 53 informed Capt. Jagat
Pal Singh PW-11 that on 11.2.2013 and again on 13.2.2013. Smt. Babita informed Capt.
Jagat Pal Singh PW-11. On the information given by Catpain Jagat pal Singh, PW-11 S.I.
Puran Chand aforesaid recorded D.D.R. No. 46 dated 13.2.2013 in the Rojnamcha of the
police-Station East, Chandigarh and formed a Police party and the came to House No. 53.
The investigation of this case remained pending with S.I. Puran Chand up to 8.3.2013. The
police remained unsuccessful in tracing out the crime till 8.4.2013. On that day, Balwan
Singh S.I. PW-24 of the CIA staff, took over the investigation of this case. He along with
members of the police party including S.I. Partap Sing PW-23 visited House No. 53. Sector
28-A Chandigarh where Mr. Devinder Singh Brar PW-12 was present. In his presence,
appellant Gurdev Singh was interrogated and he made certain disclosures after which the
further story unfolded. After completion of the investigation the accused were challaned on
the charges under Section 120-B, 392/120-B, 302/34, 302/114, I.P.C. The accused pleaded
not guilty to the charge framed against them and claimed trial. The Court of Sh. B.S.Bedi,
Session Judge, Chandigarh convicted the accused U/s. 120-B, 302/34 and in alternative
302/114 IPC.
4. That the copy of the Trial Court judgment passed by Sessions Judge Chandigarh
convicting and sentencing the petitioner in Sessions Case No.15 of 2013 U/s. 120-B, 302/34
and in alternative 302/114 IPC is Annexure P-1.
5. GROUNDS
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the Petitioner approaches
this Hon‟ble Court by way of Special Leave Petition on the following amongst other
grounds:-
A. Because the judgment and order dated 26.11.2015passed by the Hon‟ble High Court
which dismissed the appeal of the appellant is contrary to law and facts and hence the
same is liable to set aside both on the point of law and equity.
B. Because the prosecution only produced the partisan or the interested persons as
witnesses in order to prove the commission of crime by the petitioner. This fact doubts
the truthfulness of the case of prosecution.
C. Because the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence and
has thus not presented the true version.
D. Because the prosecution has miserable failed to prove its case beyond doubt against
the petitioner.
E. Because the witnesses have not deposed correctly and there is discrepancy in the
depositions of witnesses and the conviction of the petitioner is bad.
 75

F. Because the Hon‟ble Court ignored the fact to be considered in the case was as to
whether the evidence of PW-5 Gurpartap Singh, the approver, was reliable and if so
whether there was corroboration to his evidence on material particulars so as to warrant
conviction. It is high-lighted that it was a case of no evidence from the side of the
prosecution and, therefore, the evidence of the approver and other circumstances,
corroborated by his statement cannot be the base of conviction of the appellant.
G. Because Gurpartap Singh PW-5 lost his status as an approver when he appeared
before the learned Committing Magistrate and his statement was recorded as PW-1 on
11.9.1995. The relevant portion of the same is as follows:-
“Before 7.4.2012 I had no conversation with anybody. On 7.4.2012 my self, accused
Subeg Singh and accused Nand Singh were coming from Rajpura to Chandigarh on a
Motorcycle. I had come to Chandigarh on that date for the first time. When we crossed
Zirakpur, we were apprehended on the first Chowk by the Chandigarh Police. From there
we were apprehended and implicated in this case. I do not know where Sector 28 is. I was
threatened by the Police that I should give a statement in favour of the Polcie otherwise I
would be involved in a TADA case and should suffer imprisonment for whole of the life.
In the Jail also, the police people used to visit me and threaten and intimidate me. I made
statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on account of fear of the police. I have
nothing more to say about this Case”
H. Because the above statement will show that the tender of pardon given to Gurpartap
Singh by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh on 1.5.2012 was no, more
available and he lost the status of an approver. It is stated here that the Learned
Committing Magistrate was entirely wrong in permitting the cross-examination of
Gurpartap Singh by the prosecution by declaring him hostile. This could not have been
done for the simple reason that he did not attain the status of a witness. This being so, all
the proceedings after 11.9.2012 with regard to the examination of Gurpartap Singh as a
witness by the Learned committing Magistrate or by the Learned Sessions Judge,
Chandigarh stood vitiated being totally illegal. It is submitted that from the date
11.5.2012 when Gurpartap Singh made the above statement, he is to be taken as an
accused and not an approver, he had made altogether different statement from the one
alleged to have been made after alleged acceptance of tender of pardon.
6. That the Petitioner has not filed any other Special Leave Petition against the
Impugned Order dated 26.09.2002 before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India.
7. PRAYER
In the premises the Petitioner herein prays that this Hon‟ble Court may graciously be
pleased to:
a) Grant special leave to appeal to the petitioner against judgment and order dated
26.11.2015 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal
Appeal No. 305-DB of 2013, titled “Subeg Singh & Anr., versus The State Union
Territory of Chandigarh”
76

b) Pass any other order which this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner.

DRAWN AND FILED BY

NEW DELHI ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
DRAWN ON:______________
FILED ON: ________________
[NOTE : To be supported by an affidavit]
 77

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF :
X ________ R/o _______ … PETITIONER
VERSUS
Y ________ R/o _______ … RESPONDENT

CURATIVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 129, 137, 141AND 142

OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH ORDER XLVIII OF SUPREME
COURT RULES 2013
To
The Hon‟ble Chief Justice of India
And His Lordships Companion Judges
of the Supreme Court of India.

The Humble Petition on behalf of Petitioner abovenamed.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-

1. That the petitioner is desirous of filing the present Curative Petition against
the Judgment and Final Order dated ________ passed in Review Petition (Civil) No. _______
in SLP (Civil) No. ________ which was dismissed by this Hon‟ble Court vide Judgment and
Final Order dated ________.

2. QUESTION OF LAW:
In the present Review Petition the following questions of law of general public importance
arise for the consideration of this Hon‟ble Court ;
(a) Whether the Court is justified to refuse the decree for divorce when advocates
appearing for both the sides argued and submitted that since 1976 there is no
cohabitation between the parties and there is no chance of reunion and
therefore there is no harm if the decree for divorce is passed in favour of the
petitioner husband ?
(b) Whether the courts below erred in holding that the petition filed by the
petitioner was barred by the principle of resjudicata ?
78

(c) Whether the High Court as well as the courts below erred is not appreciating
the aspect that the marriage is irretrievably broken and there is no possibility
of reunion and hence the decree for divorce is to be granted ?
(d) Whether the courts below erred in holding that the ground of desertion is not
proved and can not be taken ?
(e) Whether efflux of time and admitted fact that the cohabitation is not resumed
is not sufficient to grant decree of divorce ?
3. GROUNDS
That the petitioner is filing the present Curative Petition on the following amongst
other grounds :-
A ……………..B………………C……………… D …………….

The Grounds mentioned in the curative petition had been taken in the Review Petition
and that it was dismissed by circulation; and that no new grounds have been taken in this
curative petition.
4. MAIN PRAYER :-
It is therefore, most respectfully prays to this Hon‟ble Court may graciously be
pleased to :-
(a) reconsider the Judgment and Final Order dated ________ passed by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Review Petition No. _________.
(b) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND

SHALL EVERY PRAY.
FILED BY :-

FILED ON :- _______ 2010

NEW DELHI ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
[NOTE : To be supported by an affidavit]
*****
NOTE: To be supported by affidavit of the petitioner and a certificate by Senior Advocate
CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Curative Petition has been examined by me and it appears to that
following very strong grounds exists for facts of the curative parties
The curative Petition fulfils the requirements as laid down in the judgment dated
________ in the matter of Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra [W.P. (C) No. 509/97 etc.]
reported as 2002 (4) SCC 388, as the Review Petition was dismissed by Circulation and the
grounds taken herein had been taken in the review petition and a specific averment has been
made in the Curative Petition to this effect.