Sundeep Singh ADJ Registrar Administration High Court Chandigarh

God save that High Court whose Registrar falsifies and forges its records.

Following is part of public records and anyone can obtain certified copy of the same under RTI

To,                          Date; 16.10.2014

Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice,

Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh.

Sub;  Falsification and forgery of High Court Records by Sandeep Singh, Registrar Administration, Making bizarre, illogical, laughable, irrational and irresponsible statements on High Court records thereby humiliating the Hon’ble of High Court amounting to Gross misconduct.

Sir,

1.     Sundeep Singh, Registrar Administration has scandalized this High Court by drawing / making following conclusions/ statements in AA/57 Dt 29.8.2014

(i)     Year 2011 comes before the year 2009.

(ii)    Central information commissioner is an employee of Ministry of corporate affairs.

(iii)    Anonymous letters declared false are in fact “Constitution of India”.

(iv)   Millions of cases pending all over India in various courts should be dismissed without examination of records and evidence since they are as false and frivolous as information about theft and misappropriation of assets of upto Rs 500 crore in High Court is false and frivolous. His knowledge about records of millions of cases is same as his knowledge of records of hundreds of companies under liquidation, which he says is false. He has examined neither.

(v)    Duties of AA u/s Section 19 (8) (a) (iv) for implementation of Rule 161 by High Court was not even referred or discussed.

2.     A normal person in full control of his senses and good moral character would not make above statements. Sundeep Singh has humiliated this court by drawing above conclusions / making statements on records of high court thereby evidencing either lack of good health or lack of good moral character.

3.     Briefly stated facts are that under Rule 161 of High Court rules High Court rules and orders Vol 2 Ch1 Part A high Court is required to maintain certain records. The rule states;

“161. A register shall be kept by the court of all proceedings before the Court in each matter with proper dates, so that all the proceedings may appear consecutively and in chronological order with a short statement of the question or points decided or ruled at every hearing.” (emphasis supplied).

The records were maintained only from 29.1.2014 and complete records as required by the rules were not maintained. A request was made that in exercise of powers under section 19 (8) (a) (iv) of RTI Act, Appellate authority can direct implementation of law by High Court. Section 19 (8) (a) (iv) states;-

(iv)	by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;

Records can be maintained by summoning information from official Liquidator attached with High Court. Copy of appeal is P/1. His order is P/2 which is evidence of that Sundeep Singh does not possess full control over his senses or does not possess good moral character. The statements or conclusions that he has drawn are  bizarre, illogical, laughable, irrational, irresponsible amounting to scandalizing and humiliating the Hon’ble on High Court. Details are as under;

4.     In RTI/AA/57, he states; “The present appeal concerns the information sought by the appellant in respect of working of official Liquidator, Chandigarh.”

Evidence of falsification/blindness/lacking mental health or moral character;-

The issue in RTI appeal was implementation of Rule 161 of High Court rules and orders by high Court.

Evidence of Concealment by sandeep Singh;

Sandeep Singh deliberately concealed the Rule 161 of High Court rules and Orders Vol.II C-I, P-A ;-

“Rule 161. A register shall be kept by the court of all proceedings before the Court in each matter with proper dates, so that all the proceedings may appear consecutively and in chronological order with a short statement of the question or points decided or ruled at every hearing.”

Sandeep Singh has also concealed the complete order of Chief Justice Dt 29.1.2014, context in which it was passed pursuance to my letter.

IPC Section 195; Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabri­cates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years.

5.     In AA/57 vide his order dt 29.8.2014 sandeep Singh states;- “ he (KD Aggarwal) had a grudge against the official Liquidator and its officials as the official Liquidator had not passed an order for release of his professional fee of Rs 35,76,362/-. Later, a sum of Rs 4,00,000/- was directed to be paid to him”.

Evidence of falsification of High Court records by Sandeep Singh due to any of the factors listed above;

I made a complaint Dt 3.8.2009 wherein I had stated The work of Official Liquidators does not only mean taking commissions from security agencies, advertisers, valuers, Bidders etc”. It was followed by suggestions Dt 31.8.2009 on how to block pilferage of assets of companies in Liquidation. Hence D P Ojha had a grudge against KD Aggarwal because of which D P Ojha two years later on 3.2.2011, refused to pay my Bill of Rs 4,00,000/- Dt 18.12.02 which was the admitted amount as per High Court order Dt 16.1.2013 in IOIN CP 196/1997. All the baive facts are on records of High Court. The contention of Sandeep Singh that year 2011 comes earlier than year 2009 is funny evidences lack of good health and/or lack of moral character and amounts to falsification of High Court records a major misconduct. It does not relate to implementation of rule 161 by High Court, the subject matter of AA/57.

IPC Section 195; Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabri­cates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years.

6.     Sandeep Singh further falsely states; “ The officials of the office of official Liquidator had complained against the appellant using cheap words and disturbing their working”

Evidence of concealment, falsification of Records / blindness/ lack of good health and /or lack of sound moral character.

As per sandeep singh anonymous complaints have become constitution of India to be followed and referred by him. The complaint was anonymous and stood dismissed by order of Bar council Dt 14.6.2014 on records of High Court. It was anonymous letter. No staff member filed any affidavit and none made any statement on oath. As per law anonymous letters are non est in law and cannot be looked at, let alone referred in high court records. The complaint on enquiry was also found to be false and dismissed by Order Dt 14.6.2014. It was forged by D P Ojha because I had made a complaint against him Dt 23.9.2011 for fraud and theft which was proved within the year 2012 (CP 53/12 and thefts of assets found in all companies wherever inspection was done).

IPC Section 195; Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabri­cates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years.

7.     In another instance, Sandeep Singh falsely states; “Thereafter another complaint dated 23.5.2012 was filed by the Deputy Official Liquidator before the chairman state bar Council Chandigarh against K D Aggarwal on account of misbehavior with officials”

Evidence of concealment, falsification of Records / blindness/ lack of good health and /or lack of sound moral character

Letter Dt 23.5.2012 was only a forwarding letter of anonymous letter dated 4.1.2014 already referred by him. Sandep Singh was blind that he did not see that complaint was anonymous or he was blind that he did not see the dismissal order Dt 14.6.2014. anyone can see that 3-4 persons had made all initials. It does not relate to implementation of rule 161 by High Court, the subject matter of AA/57.

IPC Section 195; Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabri­cates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years.

8.     Sandeep Singh further states; “Contempt proceedings were also initiated against him vide CROCP No 1 of 2012”.

Evidence of Concealment of records by Sandeep Singh;

He also concealed that I had made complaint Dt 3.6.2011 with the then Hon’ble Chief Justice followed by formal complaint to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Dt 3.9.2011 and CROCP was only a counter blast. CROCP is sub-judice and is not related to Rule 161 of High Court Rules, Sandeep Singh concealed the following law;

 “RULES OF AN ADVOCATE’S DUTY TOWARDS THE COURT

1. An advocate shall, during the presentation of his case and while otherwise acting before a court, conduct himself with dignity and self-respect. He shall not be servile and, whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint against a judicial officer, it shall be his right and duty to submit his grievance to proper authorities.”

It does not relate to implementation of rule 161 by High Court, the subject matter of AA/57 is proof of his lack of sound moral character.

9.     Another evidence of falsification of records is the he states that office of official Liquidator has his own CPIO.

Evidence of concealment, falsification of Records / blindness/ lack of good health and /or lack of sound moral character

Sandep Singh does not refer to duties of High Court to maintain records rule 161 (Supra) and his own duties under sec 19 (8) (a) (iv) and non-implementation of law by High Court. Sandeep Singh maliciously conceals that D P Ojha is head of that office. Sandeep Singh also maliciously conceals that after I made a complaint of corruption against D P Ojha who alongwith some employees of High Court has been stealing assets of companies under liquidation which is amply proved and stands established from records of companies. Issue before Sandeep Singh was Implementation of Rule 161 of High Court Rules and orders and Compilation of information directed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide his order Dt 29.1.2014. This was detrimental to Jagjit Singh and D P Ojha. Hence in order to protect the interests of jagjit Singh and D P Ojha and in violation of orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice he falsified the records to favor rich persons.

10.    In yet another instance of falsification of records, Sandeep Singh falsely states;; “appellant is in the habit of making false and frivolous complaints.”

Evidence of concealment, falsification of Records / blindness/ lack of good health and /or lack of sound moral character

His knowledge about records of all hundreds of companies in liquidation is as same as his knowledge of records of millions of cases pending in various courts and according to him all should be dismissed. Each one of my complaint is accompanied with documentary evidence. When did he examine any witness or documents in my presence, When did he put any of these things to me during hearing. All this is coming for first time in order. The statement evidences; lack of moral character / blindness/ idiotic / good health. He is trying to give clean chit in corruption matters in a matter relating to appeal under RTI regarding non implementation of law by High Court i.e. non maintenance of records under Rule 161 of high court rules and orders.

IPC Section 195; Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabri­cates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years.

11.    Sandeep Singh states; “he did not spare Central Information Commission, Delhi and made a complaint vide his letter Dt 26.11.2012 to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs against an order Dt 5.9.2012 passed by CIC on merits”

Evidence of concealment, falsification of Records / blindness/ lack of good health and /or lack of sound moral character

According to sandeep Singh, CIC is an employee of Ministry of Corporate affairs. Whereas CIC is a constitutional authority. CIC is not an employee of Ministry of Corporate affairs that a complaint can be filed with the Ministry of corporate affairs Sandeep Singh falsely stated that I filed complaint against CIC with Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Hence he concealed my letter Dt 26.11.2012. In pursuance to order Dt 5.9.2012 of CIC, Official Liquidator vide letter Dt 25.9.2012, first asked me to inspect the files and then by another letter Dt 28.9.2012 he asked me not to inspect the files and both the letters referred to same order Dt 5.9.2012 of CIC.

12.    I have limited my Evidence of concealment, falsification of Records / blindness/ lack of good health and /or lack of sound moral character by / of Sandeep Singh to only 10. Otherwise, each and every statement is either false or conceals material fats and law. I do not intend to write a thesis. Sandeep Singh has misused RTI appeal to favor rich employees Jagjit Singh and D P Ojha accused in upto Rs 500 crore scam.  His attempt to give them clean chit under RTI appeal is like ISI giving clean chit to Hafeez Saeed. Terrorism and corruption are equally destructive to nation. All documents are already with High Court however in case any other record is required it hall be submitted during trial and evidence. It is misconception that every order is appealable. Only erroneous orders are appealable. For corrupt orders, matter has to informed to proper authorities as per Advocates Act.

13.    The complaint was submitted to Registrar Vigilance vide letter Dt 17.9.2014 and documentary evidence was submitted to him alongwith letters Dt 4.9.2014, 12.9.2014, 15.9.2014. It is therefore prayed that Civil Criminal and Disciplinary action be taken against Sandeep Singh for falsification, concealment of High Court records.

                                                                K D Aggarwal

                                                                Advocate.

Corruption is eating away my nation. It is the right and duty of every Nationalist to make complaint against a corrupt public servant.

ONLY CORRUPT FEAR RTI;

From;                                        Date 04.09.2014

K. D. Aggarwal,

# 1366, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh

To,

PIO,

Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh.

Sub; Information under RTI relating to AA/57 o/o Registrar Administration;

Sir,

On 22.8.2014, Sh Sandeep Singh Registrar Administration orally stated that he is very transparent in his working. He is performing public duty and has nothing to hide and welcome anyone to ask him anything about him and his work: hence this application under RTI

A.     It is stated by Sandeep Singh Registrar Administration in order Dt 29.8.14 in AA/57 that I had a grudge against official Liquidator. My letter Dt 3.8.2009 wherein on information received I had informed official Liquidator that he is only “taking commissions from security agencies, advertisers, valuers, Bidders etc” and not doing any work of dissolution was followed by my suggestions dated 31.8.2009. Copies were handed over to Sandeep Singh on 25.8.2014. Because of my letter Dt 3.8.2009, 31.8.2009 D P Ojha was having grudge against me. Hence  2 years LATER  D P Ojha by his order Dt 3.2.2011 refused to pay of Bill of Rs 4.00 lacs Dt 18.12.2002. Even a LKG child knows that 3.8.2009 is prior to 3.2.2011. By saying that 2011 comes before 2009 Sandeep Singh has falsified public records. In light of above kindly supply following information;

1.     Whether any record is available on file of AA/57 which says;

a)     Copy of such record of High Court be supplied which says Year 2011 comes before year 2009. (If now someone wants such a record then the order of Sandeep Singh Dt 29.8.14 can now be supplied to public.

b)     whether there is any other material on record of AA/57 which says that year 2011 comes before the year 2009, copy of the same be given?

c)     Whether as per records Sandeep Singh had perused the date of when D P Ojha declined to release the payment which was 3.2.2011 whereas my complaint was two years EARLIER on 3.8.2009.

d)     Copy of his eye sight report if available on records.

e)     Sandeep Singh has referred to an order in IOIN CP 196/1997. Whether as per records Sandeep Singh summoned and perused the records of IOIN CP 196/1997 particularly my Bill of Rs 4.00 lacs Dt 18.12.2002. Whether Sandeep Singh can be employed as counsel or partner for D P Ojha as per records?

f)      Whether as per records Sandeep Singh summoned and perused records of all companies in liquidation that in of hundreds of companies there is no inventory of assets at time of possession. There are no ID proofs, Security agencies are not appointed seriatim as per orders of Justice Swatantar Kumar, ghosts guarding assets. Then list of all such companies be supplied as Sandeep Singh has given clean chit to D P Ojha and jagjit Singh who keeps quiet on violation of norms he himself issued under orders of Company Judge or as per High Court rules and orders.

2.     It is basic law that no court takes cognizance of any anonymous complaint. Apart from that order of state bar council dismissing the said anonymous was also available on file. Sandeep Singh not only referred to a false complaint but also concealed material fact that complaint was anonymous and stood dismissed. In light of above kindly supply me following information;-

g)     List of all cases where Sandeep Singh had relied upon anonymous complaints.

h)     Whether anonymous complaint is part of record of AA/57?

i)      Whether as per records Sandeep Singh suffers periodical blindness that he is able to see an anonymous complaint but not other record on same file i.e. the order of Bar Council

j)      Whether Sandeep Singh perused Letter of registrar (Rules) Dt 23.12.2013 in connection with the anonymous complaint.

k)     Whether as per records Sandeep Singh had put anonymous complaint to Appellant?

l)      Whether Sandeep Singh has asked for order of state bar Council which was on record of High Court in the same file.

m)    Copy of medical report of Sandeep Singh if available on record regarding periodical paralysis of brain, vocal chords or hands which prevents him to examine the complete records or refer the same in his order truthfully.

3.     Kindly provide me following information under RTI regarding malicious incomplete ignorant reference to CROCP 1/12 which was irrelevant to RTI appeal.

n).    Whether records of CROCP 1/12 is part of AA/57?

o)     Whether Sandeep Singh is aware of various laws i.e. Advocates Act, In House mechanism of high Court, Section 3(2) of Judges Protection Act, Judges inquiry Act, etc.

p)     Whether as per records Sandeep Singh summoned the file of CROCP 1/12 and perused the reply filed by appellant therein.

q)     Whether as per records he had put CROCP 1/12 to Appellant?

4.     False and malicious Reference to my alleged complaint against CIC to Ministry of corporate affairs. Whether as per records Sandeep Singh is even aware that CIC does not fall under Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

r)      Sandeep Singh in his order has stated that I have filed complaint against CIC? Whether the said complaint is part of record of AA/57?

s)      Whether my letters Dt 1.10.2012 and 26.11.2012 are part of records of AA/57. Whether sandeep Singh summoned and perused complete and thoroughly my letters Dt 1.10.2012 and 26.11.2012 and what happened in between which prevented him to quote the complete letters. They were complaints against D P Ojha. As per law, an employee of High Court cannot become attorney or partner with D P Ojha even though D P Ojha is mastermind of upto Rs 500 crore scam in High Court.

t)      Whether as per records Sandeep Singh summoned and verified telephonic records of R P Singh and D P Ojha DT 5.9.2012 of relevant time to make sweeping false statement.

u)     Whether Sandeep Singh put the alleged complaint against CIC to appellant during hearing before mentioning the same in order.

v)     Whether Sandeep Singh summoned and perused the letters Dt 25.9.2012 and 28.9.2012 of official Liquidator both referring to order of CIC dated 5.9.2012, one giving inspection and other declining inspection on same order of CIC Dated 5.9.2012. whether as per record he fell asleep while dictating those letters or suffered bout of paralysis?

w)     Whether Sandeep Singh met any member of staff of official Liquidator in absence of Jagjit Singh and D P Ojha to know that most staff members are not even aware of such a complaint, which was concocted by D P Ojha as I had based on information under RTI I had made complaint of corruption against him.

5.     Concealment of reference and verification of records mentioned in my written submissions;

x)     Whether Sandeep Singh summoned and perused the order of conviction of Krishan Singh and others staff of official Liquidator or Complaint of justice Swatantar Kumar mentioned by me in my written submissions which is modus operandii still used today by D P Ojha as explained in written submissions.

y)     Whether Sandeep Singh summoned and perused the records of CP 53/12 mentioned by me in my written submissions regarding non deployment of security guards / deployment of Ghosts by D P Ojha which is standard operating procedure of D P Ojha in all hundreds of companies in Liquidation?

z)      Whether Sandeep Singh summoned and perused the records of CP 220/2005 and CA 405/14 mentioned by me in my written submissions regarding violation of court orders relating to underhand sale of properties by D P Ojha in violation of orders of Company Judge in CP 220/05 which is standard operating procedure of D P Ojha in all hundreds of companies in Liquidation?.

In service of nation;

KD Aggarwal.

Copy to; Registrar Vigilance w.r.t. to my complaint of corruption Dt 4.9.2014 against Sandeep Singh Registrar Vigilance.

The above stated falsehoods, lies, concealment, of facts and Statute are evidence of corrupt Judge. The above evidence about Sandeep Singh be brought to the notice of H’ the acting Chief Justice also. In a related development Jharkhand High court suspended registrar (vigilance) of the high court Mushtaq Ahmed on Thursday, in connection with Tara Shahdeo case. Acting on a complaint filed by one Rajesh Singh the court issued show cause notice to the registrar, asking him to explain his conduct and act.
Jharkhan high Court suspends registrar.