To,Sh Sundeep Singh, ADJ Hayana,
Registrar administration P & H high
Court,
Chandigarh.
Sub;
Written submissions in RTI/AA/114 fixed for 23.7.2015 as per the desired
/ request of Sundeep Singh shown vide his order Dt 29.8.2014 in AA 57.
Sir,
1.
There are several complaints by real persons of gross and serious
misconduct against sundeep Singh e.g.;-
i) One
Sh Imran s/o M Safi village kathpur sultanpur mewat had complained Dt 29.4.09
against Sundeep Singh then ACJSD ferozpur Jhirka for passing an order of
registering of an FIR at the asking of his naib court Sita Ram inspite of the fact
that it being a civil matter and several civil cases were pending between the
parties and complainant Sh Imran had stay in their favor and inspite of the
fact that police interference was rejected earlier in the matter. He complained
that sundeep Singh passed the order at the asking and instance of his Naib
court Sita Ram who was in collusion with Atma ram Dairywala.
ii) A
girl Ms Poonam had complained Dt 9.9.2010 that she had appeared as a witness in
some matter and objected to some questions but sandeep singh then CJM Jind did
not record her objection and nor ruled on the same but started harassing and
mentally torturing her. He also got her father arrested who pleaded to judge
not to harass his daughter.
iii)
Another complaint of abuse by Sundeep Singh then CJM Jind is by Sh Nanak
Chand Dt 9.9.2010 for harassment and illegal confinement of his daughter.
iv) Sh
Shiv Kumar S/O Sh Som Dutt R/O 1836 Jawahar colony Saran NIT Faridabad had
complained Dt 31.10.2011 that Sundeep Singh then CJM Faridabad released a
convict and accused who was proclaimed offender in 26 different cases on bail
of Rs 20,000/- and took notice of only one case and refused to take notice that
accused is proclaimed offender in several cases. It was apparent that sundeep
Singh was in collusion with accused.
v)
Yet another instance of misconduct of sundeep singh then CJM Faridabad
is a complaint Dt 8.6.2011 by Sh Satish Kumar senior standing counsel of govt
of India Chamber No 464, High Court of Delhi who complained of unreasonable
favor to accused Praveen Prashar accused in cases under central excise.
vi)
Another case of high handedness and lack of human intelligence is
apparent from a complaint Dt 8.3.2012 filed by madan lal S/O Jyanti Prasad R/O
131 Jain Colony Ballabgarh. According to him he retired as inspector of excise
and taxation department in the year 2009. It is matter of common sense that
after retirement the govt employe ceases to have jurisdiction and control over
govt records which are under custody and control of concerned department/govt.
he was called as a witness 2 years after his retirement and asked to produce
Vat D from record room ETO Faridabad. Now how can a retired employee enter any
record room and take away any records from a record room beats common
sense. Sh Sundeep Singh ordered arrest
of Sh Madan lal for refusing to steal records in custody of ETO Faridabad. The
complaint would shock anyone at the inhuman conduct and total lack of human
intelligence of Sh Sundeep singh then CJM faridabad.
vii
Another complaint against Sundep Singh then CJM Sirsa is a case of
passing orders at instance of land mafia, Sh Anil Arora R/O 959 HUDA Colony
Sirsa has made a complaint received on 20.11.2013 by this court for illegal
extortion of Rs 4.00 lacs from him. The complaint says that Sh Sundeep Singh
acted under influence of land mafia. Because of conduct of sundeep singh who
colluded with land mafia he lost faith in judicial system and stated he is
thinking of committing suicide.
viii)
There is yet another complaint Dt 2.12.2013 regarding collusion of
sundeep singh with land mafia of Haryana while posted as CJM Sirsa by Anil
Arora.
ix)
Another complaint DT 16.8.13 against Sundeep singh by an advocate P S
Chauhan of High Court Chandigarh regarding illegal and out of favor orders in a
case.
x)
There are several other complaints against Sundep Singh which have
scandalized this court and lowered its dignity. Anil Arora complainant even
thought of suicide.
When I was young child there was a TV artist
named Tabasum who once told a story of a ‘prostitute. At that time I thought of
it as a joke. Those were times (1970s-1980s) when judges did not appoint
themselves, morality was high and judges were honest. Having belonged to family
and generations of lawyers, the story lingered in my mind all these years and
now after 35 years it is no longer a joke. It is like this;
“A prostitute was sole witness to a murder.
She was approached by relatives of accused to lie and not to identity the
accused in court. She was first offered Rs 5,000/-, she said no. The amount was
gradually increased to Rs 5.0 lacs. She continued to say No saying that would
be against morals. Angered by this attitude the relatives retorted;- “ You are not even
accepting Rs 5.00 lacs when you are just to make one false statement, you sell your body for Rs 500/- and you
speak of morals! What is your character? She responded;” This is my moral
character that I do not lie. Other thing you are talking of is my profession.
Everyone uses some part of his/her body to earn. Rickshawala uses his legs to earn,
singer uses his throat/voice to earn, musician uses his fingers to earn,
laborer uses his hands to earn, engineer doctor uses their brains to earn, I am
no different, I also use part of my own body to earn. But I do not sell my
soul. I will not lie. So please go away. You can offer the judge trying your
case the same amount you first offered me i.e. Rs 5,000- the judge would then
make a false statement in judgment to call me a liar and dismiss case in your
favor. But I will not lie. We don’t sell our souls. We have character and
morals.”
2.
Sundeep Singh has given evidence in statement Dt 29.8.14 that he is
always available for pleasure of wrong doers / criminals and agreeable to make
false statements in any proceedings thereby evidencing of lack of good moral
character, e.g.
In RTI/AA/57, sundeep Singh states; “The
present appeal concerns the information sought by the appellant in respect of
working of official Liquidator, Chandigarh.”
i)
Evidence of falsification of records by Sandeep Singh;-
The issue in RTI appeal was implementation of
Rule 161 of High Court rules and orders by high Court, and orders of Hon’ble
the chief Justice Dt 29.1.2014.
ii)
Evidence of Concealment by Sandeep Singh;
Sandeep Singh 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 also concealed the order of
Chief Justice Dt 29.1.2014.
iii).
In AA/57 vide his order dt 29.8.2014 Sandeep Singh falsely 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;
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 it was D P Ojha who 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. The contention of Sandeep Singh that year 2011
comes earlier than year 2009 is false and funny.
iv).
Sandeep Singh 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 and falsification of
Records by Sandeep Singh;
The alleged complaint was anonymous and no
staff member had filed any affidavit and none made any statement on oath. As
per law anonymous complaints are non est in law and cannot be looked at, let
alone referred in high court records. The said complaint on enquiry was also
found to be false. He thus bent backwards to favor JagJit Singh and D P Ojha
both of whom are accused in complaint of scam of upto Rs 500 crores in the High
Court. His statement does not relate to Rule 161 by High Court Rules and Orders
which was subject matter of AA/57 amounting to misuse of RTI Act.
v).
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 Falsification, Forgery of Records
by Sandeep Singh;
Complaint Dt 23.5.2012 was merely forwarding
of earlier anonymous complaint falsely
dated 4.1.2014 already referred by him I say forgery because 3-4 anonymous
persons had forged 30 anonymous initials.
Evidence of Concealment of Records by Sandeep
Singh;
Sandeep Singh has concealed that letter Dt
23.5.2012 was only a forwarding letter to anonymous, forged and dismissed
complaint Dt 4.1.2012. Since the complaint was already dismissed by state Bar
Council by its order Dt 14.6.2014, Sandeep Singh acting legally could not have
even referred to a dismissed complaint in his order.
vi).
Sandeep Singh states; “Contempt proceedings were also initiated against
him vide CROCP No 1 of 2012”.
Evidence of Concealment of facts and law by
Sandeep Singh;
CROCP is sub-judice and is not related to
Rule 161 of High Court Rules which was subject matter of Appeal. He did not ask
for facts. Sandeep Singh concealed following;
“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.”
vii).
Another evidence of falsification of records is that he states that
office of official Liquidator has his own CPIO. Sandeep Singh maliciously
conceals that D P Ojha is head of that office. He has concealed that after I
made a complaint against D P Ojha. He (DP Ojha) denied all information to me
under RTI to hide the evidence of theft and embezzlement. D P Ojha alongwith
jagjit Singh and ors of High Court has been stealing assets of companies in
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 Compilation of records 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 he falsified the records and misused RTI Act to favor corrupt and rich
persons
viii).
Sandeep Singh further falsely states; “appellant is in the habit of
making false and frivolous complaints.”
Evidence of falsification, and concealment of
records by Sandeep Singh;
Each one of my complaint is accompanied with
documentary evidence. So according to him all suits appeal writs should be
dismissed as all are false. He has examined neither my complaint nor he had documentary
evidence with him.
ix).
Sandeep Singh falsely 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 falsification, and concealment of
records by Sandeep Singh;
CIC is a constitutional authority. CIC is not
an employee of Ministry of Corporate affairs that a complaint can be filed with
the Ministry. Sandeep Singh falsely stated that I filed complaint against CIC
with Ministry of Corporate Affairs hence concealed my letter.
x).
There is a saying “If one can’t see 10 he won’t see 100”. I have limited
my evidence of falsification of records to only 10. Otherwise, each and every
statement in appeal is false or conceals material fats and law. I do not intend
to write a thesis on this. Sandeep Singh has given evidence of his loose moral
character in his order Dt 29.8.2014 in AA 57 and misused RTI act 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
garb of RTI is like ISI giving clean chit to Hafeez Saeed. Terrorism and
corruption are equally destructive to nation.
3.
Sundeep Singh has also made reference to CROCP 1 of 2012. J Surya kant
has given evidence in his statement on oath in CROCP 1/12 that J Surya kant is
available and agreeable to make false statements in any judicial proceedings
Here are few excerpts proposed application for perjury against J Surya kant in
CROCP 1 of 2012;-
i)
False Statement made by J. Surya Kant in Para 2 of CROCP 1 of 2012;
“No sooner did Mr KD Aggarwal get a copy of
judgment, than it appears firstly he applied for a copy of the “format of Oath”
taken when I was sworn in as a Judge of this Court on 9.1.2004.”
Proof of Falsehood;
Copy of his oath was applied on 21.4.2011
more than a month before J Surya kant sent the file of CWP 10434/2010 to branch
which he did on 26.5.2011 and copy of order was prepared on 13.6.2011and
received on 22.6.2011. So Oath of Office was applied while and delivered while
file of CWP 1043/10 was with Justice Surya Kant.
ii)
False Statement made by J. Surya Kant in Para 2 of CROCP 1 of 2012;
“Mr K. D. Aggarwal also enclosed a photocopy
of the oath Format after scrapping the phrase “do solemnly affirm”.
Proof of Falsehood;
There is no scraping of any words. “do
solemnly affirm” by SH KD Aggarwal. In fact the same scrapping is there in
original certified copy supplied by Hon’ble High Court under RTI. A bare
perusal of Oath of Office shows that there is an oblique mark between the two
options “do swear in the name of god’ /
“do solemnly affirm” It is a matter of common sense that Oath can only be under
one format and in this case it was under “do swear in the name of god’ and
hence the other option “do solemnly affirm” was struck off by the Office.
Justice Surya kant has deliberately made false statements.
iii)
False Statement made by J. Surya Kant in Para 4 of CROCP 1 of 2012;
“Subsequently, it transpired that no such
review application had been filed”.
Proof of Falsehood;
Review application was filed in the Registry
on 2.5.2011 vide Diary No 664197.
iv)
False Statement made by J. Surya Kant in Para 5 of CROCP 1 of 2012;
“There was no authentic proof that the letter
and the ‘review application’ were fabricated documents to malign the Court and
a member of the bar or were actually sent by Mr K D Aggarwal.”
Proof of Falsehood;
Letter was signed. It was on letterhead of KD
Aggarwal, Advocate, enclosed in printed envelop of his office. Copy of oath of
office attached with letter was duly attested by an official of High Court.
Review application was duly signed. Every letter carrying name, signatures and
address of person sending it carries a presumption of authenticity particularly
when they enclosed documents authenticated by High Court Officials.
v)
False Statement made by J. Surya Kant in Para 8 of CROCP 1 of 2012;
“records of these Misc applications reveal
that Mr KD Aggarwal had not only maligned some officials of the Liquidation
Branch of the high court with baseless accusations but had also requested the
Registrar judicial not to list his application in my Court ..”
Proof of Falsehood;
Two lies are contained herein. One that
complaint is against some employees and second that they are baseless.
a)
Complaint is against only ‘one’ employee out of ‘eight’ i.e. jagjit
Singh. ‘One’ does not become ‘Some’. Being a Company Judge, it is not possible
to believe that Justice Surya Kant was not aware that there were ‘several’
employees in Liquidation section and that ‘complaint’ was only against ‘one’.
Even this Formal complaint was filed after 9.1.2012
b)
By saying allegations are baseless scandalized his Court. It is since
proved that payments to security agencies are in name of persons never
been born, assets worth several crores have disappeared, properties have been
valued several times and sold at much below their real valuations.
vi)
False Statement made by J. Surya Kant in Para 9 of CROCP 1 of 2012;
“it would be appropriate at this stage to
refer to another set of insinuations statedly made by Mr KD Aggarwal against
Hon’ble Justice Rajive Bhalla which are lying in a sealed cover appended
herewith as ‘Annexure G’. The genesis of these complaints, the contents of
which are not known to me as the same are lying sealed, is that Mr K D Aggarwal
……. “ (He then goes on to say what is in a ‘sealed cover’).
Proof of Falsehood;
Justice Surya Kant does not explain how he
could see the ‘note inside the sealed cover’ and say with certainty as to what
was inside the sealed cover. This is nothing more than motivated misuse of
power vested by the Contempt of Courts Act which itself is contempt u/s 16
against the institution. Second Proof is R-14 in COCP 2085/11 which is again in
a sealed cover and justice Surya Kant has not explained as to how he was able
to “see inside the sealed cover” and to send it with certainty to Hon’ble the
Chief Justice and orally attach it with CROCP 1/12 unless he had prior
knowledge of contents which is possible if the document was prepared under his
command which proves he has unholy nexus with security agencies and D P Ojha
and had procured such a document.
vi)
False Statement made by J. Surya Kant in Para 9 of CROCP 1 of 2012;
“It appears that decision of the Official
Liquidator was duly approved by Hon’ble Mr Justice Rajive Bhalla in his
capacity as a Company Judge.”
Proof of Falsehood;
There is no such approval. The statements
made by Justice Surya Kant are false to his knowledge.
vii)
False Statement made by J. Surya Kant in Para 10 of CROCP 1 of 2012;
“As Mr K D Aggarwal could not stand any Court
decision against his wishes…” and goes on to say that then Mr KD Aggarwal
starts filing complaints.
Proof of Falsehood;
A)
No order was made by D P Ojha, Official Liquidator against KD Aggarwal
when KD Aggarwal first filed Complaint of corruption against D P Ojha Official
Liquidator vide his letter Dt 3.8.09 stating; “The work of Official Liquidators
does not only mean taking commissions from security agencies, advertisers,
valuers, Bidders etc. Work of Official Liquidator means dissolution of Companies.”
B)
No order is made against KD Aggarwal by Justice Rajive Bhalla then or
even till date even though KD Aggarwal has filed complaints against Justice
Rajive Bhalla to uphold independence of Judiciary.
C)
Order Dt 7.4.2011 of Justice Surya Kant in CWP 10434/10, does not affect
the KD Aggarwal or his clients hence no appeal was filed. Record shows that
vide P/17-19 that valuation of property is Rs 43.00 lacs and Petitioners had
already offered more than the valuation of properties to the Bank. No effort
was made by Bank to take physical possession. Order of J Surya kant had nil
effect.
viii)
False Statement made by J. Surya Kant in Para 13 of CROCP 1 of 2012;
“Unless he (KD Aggarwal) had reasons,
assuring guarantee to secure a favorable order, he would not have personally
attacked a Judge under the garb or pretext of attacking the judgment”
Proof of Falsehood;
Statement is presumptive, scandalous,
defamatory and against record;-
A)
The petitioners in CWP 10434/10 is one blind man and his 2 sons. They
are living hand to mouth, wear tethers clothes and apart from a small house (in
disputed ‘mortgage’) have no assets and negative net worth and no income cannot
be assured any sort of monetary based Guarantee (none has ever been given by KD
Aggarwal) except Justice and that Courts of law will uphold the law.
B)
The averments does not corroborate with facts of the case. Order does
not affect the petitioners, hence KD Aggarwal, advised not to file any appeal.
If they felt aggrieved, Petitioners could have engaged any other counsel to
file appeal but no appeal was filed as order of Justice Surya Kant had NIL
effect. Question of unfavorable order does not arise. Question was of violation
of oath of office and violation of independence of judiciary by Justice Surya
Kant. Petitioners had already offered more than the valuation of properties to
the Bank. The statement is false.
ix)
False Statement made by J. Surya Kant in Para 13 of CROCP 1 of 2012;
“The allegations against Hon’ble Justice
Rajive Bhalla where he is accused of conniving with Official Liquidator to
plunder crores of rupees…”
Proof of Falsehood;
There is no such allegation against J Rajive
Bhalla of crores then or now.
4.
It is a matter of record that CWP 18508/2003 was filed pointing out that
J Surya kant was a person with dubious Character. It was stated in the writ
that one senior Judge (reportedly chief Justice [retd] NK Sodhi) had made a
report in writing that Surya kant is not only corrupt but also tries to
corrupt/corrupts other judges. Annexure P/1 with writ alleges dubious character
of J Surya kant i.e.;
“1.
Who sponsors Foreign tours of Judges? Whose …… sweat relations with Judges
are well known
2.
Who, instead of working as an advocate, has been acting as commission
agent in service matters?
3.
Who has accepted Rs 2.00 crore as bribery from employees of FCI, in the
name of Chief Justice M M Punchi…
4.
Whose …… was caught with Chander Mohan in Himachal? … .. ”
(Writ was dismissed on the ground that
character cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction.).
5.
It is a matter of record that immediately after J Surya Kant became a
Judge, the then sitting chief justice made a complaint against J Surya kant
vide letter Dt 6.5.2005 (copy enclosed) of changing orders in CWP 6916/2004.
The case related to challenge of govt. allotment of 5.86 acres of land @ Rs 900
sq yards whereas three years to this allotment adjacent land was allotted to
Bar Council of India @ Rs 5,800 per sq yards.
First order allowed the writ and quashed the allotment but changed order
dismissed the writ. Hence complaint by the Honorable chief justice. I have come
across a complaint by Pradeep Bhandari s/o Justice (retd) K P Bhandari that J
Surya kant (a public servant) is having two wives. It is a matter of record
that there is long list of complaints from public, litigants/advocates against
J Surya kant either for lack of knowledge of law, violation of moral obligation
or violation of independence of judge from favor, affection or ill-will.
There is no merit in order of PIO that
required documents are personal. Every document which affects public service is
in public interest. If your servant goes on leave even for a day you also ask
reasons. The same way public is entitled to have copy of leave / tour
application of a public servant. The requested documents being in public
interest be given to appellant.
KD
Aggarwal
