Tuesday, October 30, 2012

MULTIPLICITY OF DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION VICTIMIZATION OF THE DRIVER POSTED AT JUDGESHIP BARREILLY


MULTIPLICITY OF DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION VICTIMIZATION OF THE DRIVER POSTED AT JUDGESHIP BARREILLY EXERCISED BY AT LEAST FOUR JUDGES OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1.      That this is the first writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned orders passed on 07.09.2012 and order dated 05.11.2011 passed by rejecting the review petition and having affirmation to the order passed in the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner before the administrative judges respectively only to the extent of withholding the back wages of the petitioner on the post of the driver in the judgeship of District Bareilly by the administrative judge even after the reinstatement of the petitioner on the said post
2.      That by means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order to the extent only for withholding the back wages amenable to the petitioner from 24.11.2006 to 05.11.2011 in pursuance of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court (Administrative Side) passed on 07.09.2012 by an order bearing no. 13655 (7-A/Admin(D):Sec: Dated: Allahabad ) 07.09.2012 passed by the joint registrar (1), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejecting the review petition of the petitioner by the administrative judge of judgeship of District Bareilly rejecting the application / review petition filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority and thereby making an affirmation to the order passed on 05.11.2012 having the decision of the administrative judge Bareilly dated 18.10.2011. Both these orders are challenged by the petitioner as these orders have been passed in defiance of the judgement passed on 18.11.2009 setting aside the order of the dismissal of the petitioner from the service passed on 24.11.2006 in writ petition no. 2641 of 2007 filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order as well as in violation of the RULE 54 of Financial Handbook, Vol. II Part-2 to 4 of the Financial Handbook dealing with  the withholding of the back wages in case of reinstatement of the petitioner in appeal decided on 05.11.2011 by this Hon’ble Court.
3.      That the petitioner was appointed in the judgeship of District Bareilly on 11.12.1989 and since then he had been working as the senior most driver in the judgeship of Bareilly without having any complaints and departmental proceedings initiated against him, except in passing of an order by then District Judge, Bareilly on the ground of the alleged misconduct of transferring the petitioner along with his car to the judgeship of Shahjahanpur by an order dated 24.11.2006 which was already set aside by the  judgment dated 18.11.2009 passed in writ petition no. 2641/2007 Anis Ahmed v/s State of U.P. and others. It is submitted that the order of dismissal of the petitioner was passed wholly without jurisdiction and in gross violation of the principle of natural justice.
4.      That the petitioner fell ill on 20.09.2006 and therefore he submitted an application for grant of the casual leave at about half past 11’o clock in the morning and came back to his house for taking the rest and medical treatment for his ailment. He consulted Dr. D. P. Bharadwaj in District Hospital, Bareilly who advised him to go on complete bed rest for 2 weeks and as such the petitioner submitted application for grant of the medical leave on 22.09.2006 through speed-post along with the prescription dated 21.09.2006 of Dr. D. P. Bharadwaj posted in District Hospital, Bareilly.
5.      That on 04.10.2006, on being advised by the doctor to have another rest for 2 more weeks on the prescription slip of 21.09.2006 issued from the District Hospital, Bareilly, the extension of the medical leave was further sought from on the ground of medical prescription again on 05.10.2006 by the petitioner.
6.      That the petitioner could not get any relief from the treatment at Bareilly, and as such on 19.10.2006 the petitioner requested to seek permission to leave the District headquarters and to be treated at Ujihani district Badaun, at his home place where he was given treatment at Community Health Centre from 19.10.2006 to 18.11.2006 by Dr. S. P. Singh who diagnosed the petitioner suffering from Typhoid fever with Broncho-pulmonary pneumonitis and was successfully treated by issuance of the fitness certificate dated 18.11.2006 to join his duties on 20.11.2006 as 19.11.2006 was Sunday.
7.      That this application of the fitness was personally handed over to Central Nazir along with the Medical Certificate but since the petitioner had already approached this Hon’ble Court by filing the writ petition no. 56513 of 2006 along with another driver who was also subjected to be transferred from judgeship of District Bareilly to Shahjahanpur on 20.09.2006 itself in pursuance of some letter issued by the registry of Allahabad High Court on 16.09.2006 and the said writ petition was decided 12.10.2006 to decide the representation dated 10.10.2006 and as such the District Judge, Bareilly did not sanctioned the medical leave and decided the representation dated 10.10.2006 by passing order of termination from service on 24.11.2006 itself. The representation filed against the transfer order dated 20.09.2006 was rejected and the termination order was passed by the District Judge, Bareilly holding therein that since the transfer order was not complied and as such the termination order has been passed for non-compliance of the said transfer order just after 5 days of submitting the application along with the fitness report dated 18.11.2006 after being recovered from his ailment of Typhoid fever with Broncho-pulmonary pneumonitis .
8.      That in this regard the petitioner may further submit that the transfer order was passed by selecting the senior most drivers of the judgeship of Bareilly wherein the petitioner was the senior most driver while the other two drivers were ranked at Sr. No. 3 and Sr. No. 5 and on their joining to judgeship of Shahjahanpur they were placed as the junior most driver and it was not within the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Bareilly to transfer his subordinate employees under his judgeship to another judgeship under the provision of Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Court’s inferior establishments Rules 1955 wherein the individual judgeship is defined under Rule 3 of the aforesaid rules. The District Judge can only transfer the subordinate employee within the judgeship of the District Judge concerned and not otherwise.
9.      That the aforesaid action of the District Judge having termination of the services of the petitioner on 24.11.2006 was challenged by the petitioner in writ petition no. 2641 of 2007 wherein the aforesaid writ petition was allowed on 18.11.2009 having setting aside the order passed on 24.11.2006 by the District Judge, Bareilly to hold the enquiry against the petitioner if deemed proper and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law.
10.  That as soon as the order of this Hon’ble High Court was served on 03.12.2009 before the learned District Judge, he immediately started the judicial inquiry no. 07/09 against the petitioner on which one Shri. P. K. Srivastava, special judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was conducted in an arbitrary manner without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to defend himself as the action of the District Judge to hold the enquiry afresh was in itself against the settled principles of the safeguard provided to the confirmed employee and were devoid of any basis as per the settled case law reported in AIR 1974 SC 455 , AIR 1978 SC 597, JT 1993(3) SC 617, JT 1998(6) SC 464 as well as in view of 1991 suppl.(1) SCC 504,1991 ,SCC (L&S) 998 as well as 1991 SCC(L&S) 421in respect of the proprietary and competence and the decision making process applicable to the confirm employee in the government service.
11.  That the petitioner challenged the order passed on 20.05.2010 dismissing the services of the petitioner without even caring for the reason of the absence of the petitioner on account of his being suffering from Typhoid fever with Broncho-pulmonary pneumonia by filing a departmental appeal under Rule 7(2)(b) of the U.P. Subordinate Courts staff (punishment and appeal) rules 1976 and the Hon’ble administrative judge was pleased to allow the said appeal on 18.10.2011 having communication of the said order being made on 05.11.2011 through the District Judge, Bareilly in part and directed reinstatement of the petitioner by withholding his two increments permanently but  simultaneously also withholding the back wages from 24.11.2006 to 05.11.2011without having its effect being counted towards service.
12.  That the Hon’ble administrative judge has not considered even that the order dated 24.11.2006 was set aside in the writ petition no. 2641 of 2007 on 18.11.2009 and as such when there was no existence of the order passed on 24.11.2006 still remained in force, the withholding of the salary of the petitioner from 24.11.2006 till 05.11.2011 is wholly without jurisdiction.
13.  That it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Hon’ble administrative judge that the learned District Judge, Bareilly had committed the manipulation in passing the anti-dated orders which was reflected in the representation submitted before the humble authority of the administrative judge. It has been submitted that the order was passed by this Hon’ble Court on 30.10.2006 in another matter in respect of the direction contained in the writ petition filed by another driver namely Rakesh Kumar whose representation dated 27.10.2006 filed against his transfer from judgeship Bareilly to District Shahjahanpur by Sh.S.K.Pandey, then district judge, Bareilly , was directed to be decided. Surprisingly, the learned District Judge decided to terminate the services of Sri Rakesh Kumar on 27.11.2006, but merely to justify his pre-medicated order of termination from services. Shri S. K. Pandey disposed off the representation of Rakesh Kumar on 27.10.2006, even before passing of the order in the writ petition by this Hon’ble Court on 30.10.2006.
14.  That the application for grant of the leave which was accompanied by the medical certificates were also rejected by the anti-dated orders passed by then District Judge, Bareilly in order to demonstrate the justification for termination of the services of the petitioner by treating him as deliberate absence from duty while the petitioner was suffering from illness of Typhoid fever with Broncho-pulmonary pneumonitis during the period from 20.09.2006 to 18.11.2006 and the medical prescription from the government hospital were submitted to establish the fact of the genuine ailment but the learned District Judge had acted arbitrarily and discriminately in choosing the name of the petitioner for transfer to another judgeship and to become the junior most driver in the said district despite the fact that the petitioner was the senior most driver in  District Bareilly.
15.  That in this manner once the administrative judge has arrived to the conclusion that the punishment given to the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges and if the Hon’ble administrative judge had already imposed the minor punishment by depriving the petitioner from two increments permanently, the double punishment given to the petitioner on the same charges in respect of withholding the salary from 24.11.2006 to 05.11.2011 is violative of the principle of the equity on the Doctrine of being violative on account of double jeopardize which is unconstitutional and violative of Article 20 (2) read with Article 14, 16, 21 and 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
16.  That apart from this as submitted earlier that the question of entitlement to the back wages on the reinstatement of the petitioner in service had to be decided in accordance with the provision of Rule 54 Vol.II Part 2 to 4 of the Financial Handbook wherein in such type of the category of cases when the punishment order was modified by the appellate authority in appeal, the petitioner became entitled to receive his pay and allowances for the period when he was subjected to victimized by imposing the major punishment, but was exonerated of the major punishment of the dismissal/termination to the minor punishment of the loss of two increments permanently for the rest of the services as per sub rule 6 and 7 of the aforesaid rules.
17.  That the Hon’ble Appellate authority on one hand had taken the stand that the period of the absence shall be treated as the period spent on duty while withholding of the salary without assigning any reason and thereby modifying even the judgment delivered on 18.11.2009 in the writ petition no. 2641/2007 which became final between the parties in which the administrative side of the High Court was in itself the party to the said proceedings and since the finality is attributed to the aforesaid judgment withholding of the salary from 20.09.2006 up to 18.11.2009 was in itself derogatory to the orders passed between the parties.
18.  That the petitioner filed the review petition stating all such facts before the Hon’ble administrative judge who has completely overlooked to all such aspects of the matter and had not dealt with even the provisions of Rule 54 of the Financial Handbooks in dealing with the question of entitlement of the petitioner for grant of the entire back wages which could have only been forfeited after giving an opportunity of hearing on the substantial question of law submitted herein above before this Hon’ble Court in the present writ petition.
19.  That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. M. Gopal Krishna Naidu v/s  State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1968 pg 240 had laid down that, “consideration under the rule FR 54 ”, “depending upon as it does on facts and circumstances in their entirety and passing an order on the basis of the factual finding arrived at from such facts and circumstances and such an order resulting in pecuniary loss to government servant must be held to be an objective rather than the subjective function”. “The very nature of the function implies the duty to act judicially”. “In such a case, if an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed is not afforded, as admittedly it was done in the present case the order is liable to be struck down as invalid on the ground that it is one breach of the principle of Natural Justice”.
20.  That the petitioner has further been advised to state that the order passed on 05.11.2011 to the extent of forfeiture of his pay and allowances for the period intervening the dismissal and reinstatement in service is totally invalid and unsustainable within the eye of law.
21.  That acting upon the directive issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above noted case of N. M. Gopal Krishna Naidu v/s  State of Madhya Pradesh, the government of Uttar Pradesh issued the government orders no.17/1/1970-Niukti(3) dated 29.11.1973 followed by the other government orders issued on 13.01.1983 regarding withholding of the applicant’s back wages, which according to the aforesaid government orders is illegal and invalid.
22.  That in case no payment or lesser payment of the applicant’s back wages was proposed it was mandatory to give a show cause notice to the petitioner and in case of giving lesser payment or forfeiture of the pay and other allowances, the same could have been done after considering the reply of the petitioner in furtherance of the show cause notice, which has not been done in the present case by the Appellate authority.
23.  That in this manner the petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate expectations which is akin to the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel which prescribes that unequivocal promises creates the binding effect between the parties making them and such assurance may not be repudiated unilaterally, simply on the basis of the whims and fancies of the authority  and as such once it has been held that the order of dismissal of the petitioner is unsustainable by directing the petitioner in reinstatement in service, neither it was within the power and jurisdiction of then learned District Judge to complete the departmental enquiry without providing any opportunity of being heard and to submit the enquiry report and thereafter to pass again the order of dismissal when admittedly the petitioner applied for the grant of the medical leave and was supported with the medical prescription regarding his ailment of Typhoid fever with Broncho-pulmonary pneumonitis during the period from 20.09.2006 to 18.11.2006 and the medical prescription from the government hospital that has been taken into consideration by the Appellate authority in passing the order on 05.11.2011, but without granting the back wages during the period in which he has been deprived arbitrarily to discharge his duties due to the punishment found disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner by the Appellate authority.
24.  That the rejection of the review petition has been done without looking to the grounds and the evidence adduced in the review petition. None of the grounds including the legal aspect dealt with regarding ambit and the scope of FR 54 has been taken by the Hon’ble administrative judge in rejecting the review petition by the cryptic order that “the petitioner had never been exonerated on merit, punishment awarded is commensurate to the charges found proved” which is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. WHERE WE HAVE BEEN WRONGED IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF FUCTIONINGS OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGES INDULDGING THE INNOCENT CITIZEN TO DEALT WITH

Thursday, October 11, 2012

THE CHIEF MINISTER OF UTTARANCHAL NAMELY MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BAHUGUNA WAS THE CORRUPT JUDGE


THE CHIEF MINISTER OF UTTARANCHAL NAMELY MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BAHUGUNA WAS THE CORRUPT JUDGE HAVING A NEXUS WITH THE LAWYERS , WHICH WERE HIS COUSIN NAMELY SRI RAKESH DWEVEDI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, SHRI SHASHI NANDAN ANOTHER SENIOR ADVOCATE, the COUSIN and ONE SRI U.K.SAXENA , WHO HAS BEEN INDUCTED AS COUNSEL FOR UTTARANCHAL( UTTARA KHAND ), AS SUCH HE WAS TRANSFERED TO MUMBAI. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE HGE AMOUNT OF BRIVE MONEY WAS RECOVERED FROM HIS CHAMBER AND AS SUCH THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS DEPRIVED HIM FROM WORKING OF THE WORKING AS HIGH COURT JUDGE. HIS FATHER Mr. HEMWATI NANADAN BAHUGUNA IS  SAID TO BE FEEDED BY KGB , WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE MURDER OF LATE SHRI LAL BAHADUR SHASHTRI AND THERE BY GIVING WAY TO INDIRA GANDHI NEE MAMUNA BEGUM w/ OF FIROJ JAHANGIR KHAN S/O NAWA KHAN OF JUNAGARH AND THERE AFTER FROM MOHHAMAD YUNUS WRITING NOVEL “PERSON, PASSIONS, AND POITICS” AFTER REMINANCES OF NEHRU AGE OF M.O.NUTHAI AND NEHRU DYNASTY  BY ASTROLOGER K.N.RAO  ERE CONSCIFICATIONS BY THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT. SONIA GANDHI REMAIN THE KING PIN AND GOT ELIMINATED INDIRA GANDHI, SANJAY GANDHI AND THERE AFTER RAJIV GANDHI FROM PRABHAKARAN .
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
                                                                      SPE/SIU (XII)
                                                                      NEW DELHI
                                                      _________________________________
1.      PROGRESS REPORT NO.            :           1
AND DATE.                     :           23.02.1993
                                                    
2.      CASE NO. AND DATE      :          RC.1/93-SIU(XII)
OF REGISTRATION          :         Dt.08.07.1993

3.      NAME OF THE ACCUSED  :       M/s . Southern Arts,
                                         Exporters of Indian Handicrafts
                                                     10-D, First East Main Road,
                                         Shenoy Nagar,
                                         Madras and Unknown Others.

4.      OFFENCES                      :            U/s 120-B IPC and  Sec.25 (1)
                                         r/w Sec.3(1) of Antiquities and
                                         Art Treasures Act, 1972

5.      NAME OF THE IO.          :                                   Shri Hari Kumar, Inspr/SIU.
6.      NO. OF WITNESSES       :
EXAMINED

That, M/s. Southern Arts, Exporters of Indian Handicrafts, 10-D, First Main Road, Shenoy Nagar, Madras, exported 34 items from the port of Madras to Mr. Guide Zanderige Via 24 Maggie 437126 Verona, Italy, in connivance with the officials of Customs of Madras, Illegally against the provisions of the Antiquities & Art Treasures Act, 1972. On inspection of the aforesaid 34 items by Dr. C. Margbandhu, Director (Exploration), ASI, New Delhi at Pisa, Italy at the instance of Department of Culture, Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi, 19 items were found to be “Antiquity”. In view of above, the instant case was registered against the Exporter (and unknown others).
                       
9.                   DEVELOPMENTS:-
             
During the fortnight under review, the IO Submitt plan of Action in the case. A copy of the same is enclosed herewith. Special Look-out notices have also been sent to NCRB/New Delhi and to the Director General of Police of Southern States along with the photocopies of photographs of the items, which are lying presently at Pisa, Italy with the Customs Authorities, requesting them to check their records under their jurisdiction with a view to find out, if any report regarding the theft of any the item, is reputed, to them. Interpol/CBI/New Delhi has been requested to move to IP/Rome for the seizure of the consignment, in question, lying with Customs authorities in Pisa, Italy and restitution of the same to India thereafter. The matter has also been reported to Secretary, Department of Culture, Ministry of Human Resources & Development, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi so that they may inform to the Embassy of India at Rome, Italy, for necessary direction to Customs Authorities in Pisa, Italy, for not releasing the consignment to the Importer. The IO has proceeded to Madras in connection with the investigation of this case and the progress shall be reported to HO on his return.

10.                    CD (S) NO. & DATE (S)             : C.D. No.1 dated   .07.1993
                          ON WHICH PR BASED      : C.D. No.1 dated   .07.1993  
                                                                                                        C.D. No.1 dated   .07.1993
                                                                                                        C.D. No.1 dated   .07.1993
11.                    PENDING ACTION                     : A detailed Plan of Action
                                                                                                        Submitted by the IO, is
                                                                                                        Enclosed herewith.
DETAILED PLAN OF ACTION SUBMITTED IN CASE RC.1/93-SIU(XII) FOR PERUSAL.
                                                                      _______
1.                   To take immediate steps for retrieval of the case property from Italy by moving the Interpol as well as Indian Embassy in Rome.
2.                   To send reference to Interpol for conducting part investigation in Italy regarding the examination of the Importer.
3.                   To visit Madras:-
i.                     information to be collected from the exporters regarding the procurement of the antiquities, their supplier etc. and also to elicit information regarding the conspiracy if any with ASI or customs. Collect the original shipping bills and other documents from the Customs Madras and also examine the concerned appraiser who passed the consignment.
ii.                   To examine the ASI officials in Madras to know whether the consignment was referred to them by customs authorities and also to know whether the exporters ever obtained the non-antiquity certificate for the items they exported, and also examined the concerned officers.
iii.                 To examin concerned CHA in Madras who facilitated the shipment of the consignment. Further to seize the copy of the concerned shipping bill available with the CHA and also to examine the concerned persons, procuring their, specimen handwriting and signature etc. to prove that the shipping bill was prepared by them (For GEQD Reference).
iv.                 To interrogate the partners or the proprietors of the exporter i.e. M/s. Southern Arts,                   Exporters of Indian Handicrafts, 10-D Ist East Main Road, Shenoy Nagar, Madras to know the facts and circumstances by which they could manage to export the consignment consisting the antiquities by hoodwinking the authorities and smuggling the items. Further
v.                   To collect information regarding the payments made by the Italian customer for particular consignment and also to visit the concerned bank and obtain the records pertaining to payment.
vi.                 To collect all other information which may crop up during the investigation like the export licence or permit etc. of the exporter.

4.                   To make efforts to know whether the antiquities in this case are of stolen items by sending Special Look Out Notices and also to other sources like publishing the photograph of the seize antiquities in major national newspapers.
5.                   Any other points as suggested by SP.
Submitted for perusal.                                                                        1.            Ms.Sonia Gandhi may well turn out to be India’s Fujimori, the Peruvian Leader of Japanese descent. It is now known that Fujimori has been secretly maintaining and hiding his Japanese citizenship while claiming to be a natural born Peruvian national. The wrath of the people of Peru came to visit upon Fujimori when his corrupt activities came to be unraveled, so he bolted back to Japan with his loot intact and then revealed that he had been all  along a born Japanese citizen, and thus immune from extradition to Peru. Ms. Sonia Gandhi has like Fujimori in Peru a long history of committing fraud on the public. Ms. Sonia Gandhi shares Fujimori’s mendacity as well. For, example, in the Lok Sabha Who’s Who, on page 290-91, Ms.Gandhi has claimed to have been educated in the Cambridge University. This is utterly and completely false. Ms. Gandhi had instead gone to the town of Cambridge to learn English in a unrecognized teaching shop. Such falsehood is thus reflective of the duplicitous mentality of Ms. Sonia Gandhi. Time is now near for her to be exposed as India’s Fujimori.
2.            Ms. Sonia Gandhi’s track record, hitherto unscrutinized, reveals an incredible venality and culpability under criminal laws of the country. She is therefore extremely vunerable to any hostile government, and thus would seriously jeopardize the prospects of an opposition coalition that included the Congress Party in an election campaign against the incumbent in office. The track record of Ms.Sonia Gandhi as a habitual law breaker are illustrated below.
A.                    In 1972, Ms.Sonia Gandhi took employment as an insurance agent of Oriental Fire Insurance, a public sector firm. As a foreigner as she was then, she committed a criminal offence by taking such employment. Furthermore, she showed her business address as the official residence of the then Prime Minister and her mother-in-law, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, at 1, Safdarjung Road, New Delhi, which is an offence. Besides these, she collected commissions on insurance policy sold to Maruti and to individuals in the Prime Minister’s Office, which is also an offence. These facts came to light in a Rajya Sabha Question Hour in November                1974. The then Prime Minister Mrs.Indira Gandhi,and mother-in-law later announced in the House that Mrs.Sonia Gandhi had resigned her insurance agency, a clear admission of culpability under law. The three offences listed above are not subject to the statute of limitation, and thus the failure to prosecute Ms.Sonia Gandhi then, is no bar to launching prosecution now.
B.            On January 25, 1973, Ms.Sonia Gandhi was appointed the Managing Director of Maruti Technical Services Private Ltd.[MTSPL] in an “extraordinary” meeting of two share holders who together held all the shares, 20 shares each of Rs.10 per share. The two shareholders at the meeting were Ms.Sonia Gandhi and Mr.Sanjay Gandhi. The MTSPL was incorporated on November 16, 1970. On September 28, 1974, Ms.Sonia Gandhi was made the MD of the Maruti Heavy Vehicles Private Ltd.[MHVPL], which was incorporated on February 22, 1974 with 13 shareholders in which the Gandhis had controlling interest. The Maruti car company and the heavy vehicles firm entered into a consultancy contact for expert advice with MTSPL for which susstantial fees were paid.

In 1978, the Commission of Inquiry headed by Supreme Court Judge Mr.A.C.Gupta, appointed by the Janata Party government, submitted its Report on the affairs of the Maruti companies. The Commission recorded the depositions of S.Kumar, Registrar of companies, and A.Banerjee, Income tax officer, Mr.Kumar held that “the allotment of shares of the MTSPL and MHVPL to Ms.Sonia Gandhi  was in contravention of Section 28(1) of FERA 1973 which prohibited foreigners from owning shares in Indian companies, and hence was ab initio void in law. By Section 56, Ms.Sonia Gandhi thus committed a criminal offence that limitation on this offence even if FERA stands replaced by FEMA in 2000. Thus Ms.Sonia Gandhi can be prosecuted even today. Furthermore, the Gupta Commission recorded that Income Tax Officer, A. Banerjee had disallowed the remuneration paid by MTSPL to Ms.Sonia Gandhi “because she had no qualifications to be able to render any technical service to the company.” Considering that Ms. Sonia Gandhi holds an unrecognized “diploma” from a English Language teaching shop for unemployed European girls in the city of Cambridge, England, that is quite obvious. Hence a fraud was committed, for which Ms. Gandhi can be prosecuted under Income Tax law as well.
C.            The electoral rolls of the New Delhi Constituency were revised in 1980 with January of that year as the qualifying date. When the voter list was published, Ms. Sonia Gandhi, then an Italian citizen, illegally became a voter at serial number 388 of polling station number 145 of that constituency. Ms. Gandhi applied to become an Indian citizen only on April 7, 1983, and was granted citizenship with lightening speed on the same day. But during the three years till the beginning of 1983, Ms. Sonia Gandhi remained on the voter roll committing offences punishable under Section 31 of the Representation of Peoples Act 1950, of a maximum sentence of one year and fine. Ms. Sonia Gandhi cannot say that she was not willfully committing this grievous offence because to become a voter, one has to fill and sign Form 6 prepared under the Electors Rules 1960 in which affirmation of citizenship of India is essential. Hence Ms. Gandhi by this false affirmation also committed offences under the Indian Penal Code, particularly Sections 192 and 199, which carry a three year punishment.
D.            During the 1980s, Ms.Sonia Gandhi’s mother Mrs.Paola Maino, and sister Anushka Vinci had developed business connections with Snam Progetti’s resident in India, Mr.Ottavio Quattrocchi. The Influence wielded by Rajiv Gandhi’s Italian in-laws enabled Quattrocchi to corner government contracts such Thal Vaishet fertilizer project, as well as to broker deals such as the Bofors 155mm gun sale to the Indian Army. Affidavits filed in a Malaysian court and documents with the CBI establish that Sonia’s sister Anushka and her husband (now ex) Walter Vinci were beneficiaries from the receipts of Quattrocchi from Bofors company. Quattrocchi has also declared that he is a close friend of Ms.Sonia Gandhi, a claim not denied by her. Hence Ms.Sonia Gandhi, her sister and mother are candidates for inclusion in the Bofors bribery case FIR under Section   319 of the Cr.P.C., to be thus investigated and prosecuted.
E.                  Revelations contained in the archives of the KGB became public, and some of which were published in Pravda and Izvestia in 1992 following the liquidation of the Soviet Union. Most of these Archives are now kept in a library at Harvard University, USA. One letter in the archives documents the regular payment of commission to Ms.Sonia Gandhi and the Maino family in Italy, arranged by the KGB. One letter [published in a Russian news daily Izvestia on June 27, 1992 in an article by Ms.Yevgenia Albats of Moscow News] was written by the then KGB chief, Viktor Chebrikov to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union [CPSU]. The KGB chief reporting these payments to the CPSU for ractification, stated that members of the Rajiv Gandhi family had expressed profound gratitude for the help being received by them through commercial deals of an organizations. In a confidential message to the KGB, stated Chebrikov to the CPSU, “they [the Mainos] informed that a major part of these resources was used to support the party of Mr.Rajiv Gandhi”. Only July 3, 1992 Ms.Tatiana Samolis, the spokesperson of the KGB’s successor organization, the Federal Intelligence service [FIS], in a press briefing in Moscow [which was reported in the Hindu 4.7.92] confirmed that indeed such a connection between the KGB and Mainos had existed “in view of the ideological confrontation that prevailed in the world at that time” In the 1989 elections for example the Mainos spent Rs.10 crores on select candidates of the Congress Party in the General Elections, obviously to create cheerleaders for Ms.Sonia Gandhi for a future contingency, Mr.Arjun Singh was one such recipient from the Mainos. Ms.Sonia Gandhi, her mother and sister are thus guilty of offences under IPC Sections 120B read with 171-C and 171-H, as well as FERA and FCRA.
F.                   The Mainos have systematically plundered and exported the ancient treasures of India, especially temple sculptures of Tamil Nadu, Andhra, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh, Mughal paintings and precious gems in Indian Museums, all protected and banned from export under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. The CBI had in 1993 registered cases on such illegal exports from a Chennai Suburb to an identified person in Italy (see enclosed document). Alitalia and Air India flights were used to send unchecked crates after after crates misusing the SPG cover first to Italy for display in shops owned by her family e.g.Etnica in Rivolta or Ganpati in Orbassano [see enclosed photo and calling card], and after creating an ownership on paper, getting the contraband auctioned by Sotheebys and Christies, the London auctioneers. Fred Watson’s            Sothebys-An Inside Story [Random House, 1998] gives some clues on such a racket. There is in the records of the Ministry of Human Resources enough materials in Notes on file of Directors Generals of Archeological Survey of India to suggest precious ancient paintings of the Mughal period were removed and declared “stolen” or missing, but ended up in a house in Golf Links, New Delhi which Ms.Sonia Gandhi had frequented. Even the Festival of India was used as a ploy to smuggle out such treasures.  In arranging these delicate operations the Mainos took the help Mr.Arjun Singh [when he was Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister and later Union Human Resources Development Minister], art expert Martand Singh, a Pakistani couple Muneer and Farida Attaullah, London based Pakistani fixer Salman Thassir a prince of Kuwait, and even the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) which has been convicted by courts in India for the assassination of Mr.Rajiv Gandhi Thus, Ms.Sonia Gandhi and her Italian relatives are culpable for various offences under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act as well as under Sections 295, 378 and 410 of the IPC.
G.                  When Rajiv Gandhi married Sonia Gandhi on February 25, 1968, she was poor. Her Father Stefano Maino had lost everything after his party leader, Benito Mussolini, the II Duce of Fascist Italy, was overthrown and killed. After World War II, Stefano became a brick layer, and Sonia’s mother, Paola Predebon, a share cropper. Like many poor Italian families, Sonia was dispatched to learn English in a teaching shop in Cambridge town and thus land a job as an hostess or in similar employment, a modest goal indeed. Her marriage to Rajiv Gandhi on 25.2.68 however changed all that. And because of the aforesaid illegal activities, the Maino family became in just 25 years the richest family of Italy with net worth of US $ 2.0 billion. The respected Swiss magazine, Schweizer Illusttrierte, in its November 1991 issue, reported that the Mainos had in 1991 about $2.7 billion. But over the 1990s decade, the Mainos appear to have lost some of the money due to reckless investments, collapse of the Barings Bank, and ostentatious spending. They are still worth about US $2.0 billion today.
H.                  Ms.Sonia Gandhi has also fully utilized the martyrdom of her husband Rajiv Gandhi to advance her political career as well as to take control of the Nehru family’s monetary inheritance. The Rajiv Gandhi Foundation was set up under her chairmanship and Rs.200 crores collected during Narasimha Rao’s          tenure as PM, for use in education and public affairs. Yet an analysis of the accounts of the Foundation show that only 3% of the income is being used for the stated objectives while 97% is deployed  for other goals including for private travel of Ms.Gandhi and her chosen ones. This is a violation of the Trust Act and thus Ms.Gandhi and other trustees can be          proceeded under Section 92 of the CPC. There is already a PIL in the Delhi High Court in this matter.
3.                   Circumstantial evidence is also fast accumulating that makes it now imperative for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe whether the mother (Ms.Paola Maino) and sister (Ms.Anushka Vinci) of Ms.Sonia Gandhi, have had a long term continuing association since 1984 with the terrorist organization, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), The Supreme Court had delivered on May 12, 1999 a stinging judgement that held the LTTE responsible for the assassination of India’s former Prime Minister Mr.Rajiv Gandhi. The Government had set up a Multi Disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) in August 1998, led by the CBI, to probe leads such as that have now surfaced regarding the Maino-LTTE links.
4.                  The Circumstantial evidence of these links include Sonia Gandhi’s plea for commuting the death penalty for her husband’s killers; in providing one acre of land near the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi, for housing the Periyar Centre for the pro-LTTE and secessionist Dravida Kazhagam (DK) which had been indicted in Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination by the Jain Commission (Part III, Vol.IV, Chapter VII, Pages 161-73, of the Final Report) and whose seven key members have been sentenced along with nineteen others of the LTTE by the Supreme Court, for participating in the assassination conspiracy. There are several other examples of Ms.Sonia Gandhi going inexplicably soft                     on the LTTE, including remaining silent on the failure of the government to extradite the LTTE Supremo Prabhakaran.
5.                   The CBI-led Multi Disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) set up after the Jain Commission Final Report, should therefore send interrogatories to the Maino family in Italy about all this, and investigate the extent of their connections with LTTE.
6.             Ms.Sonia Gandhi’s family in Italy constitutes a major national security risk for India, but paradoxically they enjoy the cover of the Indian state for their nefarious activities. The RAW, India’s foreign intelligence agency has reports of this national security risk. While in service (during Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure as PM), the Additional Director of RAW, B.Raman had in a report stated:
                                                                                                                                                      
“Ms.Sonia Gandhi’s umbilical cord is strongly tied to Italy. Her close relatives are Italian citizens living in Italy. India has important national security interest in Italy because of its arms, nuclear and technology supply relationships with Pakistan and China.”
Raman concluded that no source in Italy or in EU would cooperate with Indian Intelligence on this issue since they would fear that one day perhaps these sources may fall into Italian hands. After retirement from RAW, Raman even published these views in Statesman (May 16, 1999) in an article under his own name.
Italy, incidentally, is flouting US sanctions and providing avionics to the Sino-Pakistan Joint project to manufacture the F-1 Chinese design plane update, which is to be a successor to the US F-16 super fighter jets. Indian Intelligence is busy trying to build sources in Italy to track details of this collaboration.

7.         For all these information I have written to Ms.Vasundara Raje, Minister in charge of Personnel (i.e.,CBI) to initiate a CBI inquiry. On all the above, if on no action is initiated, I will have no other option but to move the courts of People myself to set the law of people aggression  into motion.                                 
     
                                                                                                                      We, The People Of India
                                                                               Appeal to the Nationalists Straight forward Citizen
                                                                                 Strive to Protect The Dignity of our Nation