de-colonising Indian civil service.

You can never decolonize the Civil Service. Tyranny is the source of their unaccountable power and wealth.

The British were ruthless. They did everything the Zionists did before the Zionists did. But they won and the winners write History. But they did have certain redeeming features which is why they were able to get so many natives to build their empire for them. One such quality was a deep sense of fair play that had been inculcated in them since the days of Elizabeth the First, built on the much earlier foundation of the Magna Charta which not only helped them escape the rigours of proletariat revolutions that took place in Russia, or France but build a powerful nation.

This is why, to weaken and enslave India, they induced the enshrinement of inequality under law, exceptions to the rule of law and "many nations" in India's Constitution, thus taking away their principal contribution that had stolen away men's hearts and minds from the Sultans and the Rajas, to risk and sacrifice their lives for them. In other words, with this one deft stroke of Constitutional legerdemain, they returned India to what they had found. A patch work quilt of raping, looting petty potentates.

They accelerated the transformation by inspiring their stooges who ruled India after them with "Social Engineering" and turned the pyramid upside down to put power in the hands of those least capable and keep it away from merit and integrity. Thus it is that we see India today, a law less Nation in a constant state of Civil War, reduced to 135 out of 172 countries (and below Sub-Saharan Africa) in the Global Human and Social Development Index (UNDP – 2015) and 143 rd out of 172 countries in internal Peace and Stability (UNDP – 2015) , home to 30% of the World’s poor (World Bank 2016) and with the highest number of Bomb Blast in the World 2016) pushing Iraq to a lowly second place with just half as many; in just 67 years.

The Indian Constitution that was plagiarized by Nehru G and Ambedkar G from the Government of India Act (1935) (A House of Lords Confection) modified for the “Constituent Assembly” by Sir Maurice Gwyer, the then Chief Justice of Delhi, by adding notions such as “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others”, and “Four legs good, two legs bad” borrowed from George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and the laws that have flowed therefrom to condemn India to a perpetual State of Civil War is sufficient evidence of this.

 

A nation locked in the iron maiden of the British Judiciary, Bureaucracy, Police and raised on the gibbet of the Reservations-Extortion Constitution and laws.

Source;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RYS6V76lRQ&feature=share 

MA Khan Yusufi Information commisioner

Case of corruption in Central information commisioner Delhi.

M A Khan Yusufi Information commisioner CIC, New Delhi

 

Object of RTI is exposing corruption and increasing efficiency;

Date 5.1.2015

From;

KD Aggarwal, 

#1366, Sector 40-B,

Chandigarh.

To,

         Secretary/Additional secretary/Registrar/Joint Secretary/IC, Central Information commission, 2^nd floor August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji cama Place, New Delhi 110066.

Sub; Complaint of corruption against IC MA Khan Yusufi

Sir,

Sh D P Ojha ex-official Liquidator, Chandigarh and presently posted as official Liquidator, New Delhi is involved in upto Rs 500 crore scam in the office of official Liquidator, Chandigarh. Part evidence collected under RTI can be made available on request. The modus operandii is;-

i)       Looting Public of money and property worth crores of rupees by pstealing, cheating and theft of assets under his custody.

ii)      Making payment in name of persons who have never been born and thus making crores of rupees for self and benefit of private persons.

iii)     Making undue gains for himself and loss to public by managing bids of Properties below their valuation and pocketing the difference.

iv)     Making payments to Valuers in excess of their entitlement by concealing the approved norms, getting different valuations of same property to show to different persons for the purpose of managing bids thereby making private benefit of public office.

I have been seeking information under RTI to expose corruption. I was informed that D P Ojha has visited o/o CIC to make contact with IC dealing with matters pertaining to him/ official Liquidators with object of influencing his decision by offer of pecuniary and other advantage. In December I received notice of hearing of 3 appeals 2014/460-462 for 17.12.14 filed in March 2014. Unfazed by what I had heard, I attended the hearings held on 17^th December. Official from O/O Official Liquidator also attended but he was asked to remove his attendance. Taking no chances and as a matter of abundant caution I faxed my written submissions of about 4-5 lines in each matter at or about 9.30 AM on following day i.e. 18^th December. It was confirmed by staff that order is not finalized and faxes are legible and have been placed in respective files for Information Commissioner Khan Yusufi to see.

The orders on all three appeals have been received. In the least they evidence lack of human intelligence and at most they confirm what I had heard. The details are;

Information sought in Appeal 460/2014;

Details of FIRs lodged regarding theft of assets of Companies in Liquidation since 01.01.2003 and connected issues.

Written submission faxed in Appeal 460/2014;

Total number of companies under Winding up; 150-200.

Total number of companies where assets were available; 80-100

Number of companies where thefts have occurred; 80-100

However FIRs are not lodge in all cases but only in some Cases and such number of cases may be in range of;30-50

Why order is ex-facie corrupt and/or against human intelligence?;

i)  There is no mention of written submissions and no discussion on the same, which is evidence of either lack of human intelligence or deliberate act of corruption.

ii)  The order states; “Appellant admitted himself that he is not aware about the exact number of companies during particular period”. The statement in the order is false to the knowledge and against records amounting to offence of perjury by Information Commissioner Khan Yusufi.

iii)   Sh Khan Yusufi further states that information is vague and Applicant failed to pinpoint name of companies where theft has occurred. Name of company where theft has taken place is known either to the thief or to Liquidator. How would a citizen know in which company thief has stolen. Contention is against human intelligence. Further as per Information Commissioner Khan Yusufi the citizen must be submit exact information he requires to CPIO and then seek It back from CPIO under RTI. The contention of Information Commissioner Khan Yusufi is evidence of lack of human intelligence in Order.

iv)  Sh Khan Yusufi further states Appellant has inspected records of some companies and he is satisfied. As per record of 1^st AA only two companies are mentioned. Information Commissioner Khan Yusufi changes word “two” to “some”. Word “two” (out of 200/30-50) means no information was given under RTI  whereas if it is deliberately changed to “some” means information was given under RTI. It is deliberate act of misconduct. Changing of facts is evidence of corruption.

The order of Information Commissioner Khan Yusufi is evidence of lack of morality and/or lack of human intelligence.

Similarly his other two orders are as under;

Information sought in Appeal 461/2014;

Details regarding bids received qua sale of assets and highest as accepted by Official Liquidator and connected issues.

Written submission faxed in Appeal 461/2014;

“Official Liquidator invited bids and conducts inter se bids (in case bidders are more than one). Only highest bid is taken to court for confirmation. Contention of appellate authority that sale is confirmed by High Court which orders are under public domain would not apply since information sought pertains to steps taken by Official Liquidator prior to submitting only highest bid to High Court for confirmation.”

Why order is ex-facie corrupt and/or against human intelligence?;

i)  There is no mention of written submissions and no discussion on the same, which is evidence of either lack of human intelligence or deliberate act of corruption.

ii)  Information Commissioner Khan Yusufi says that since sales are confirmed by High Court hence order of CPIO/AA do not require interference. Whereas Information sought  was of the pre-stage of High Court whereas Information Commissioner Khan Yusufi deliberately changed it to later Court proceedings.

iii)  Changing information sought is evidence of corruption. The order of Information Commissioner Khan Yusufi is evidence of lack of morality and/or lack of human intelligence.

Information sought in Appeal 462/2014;

Valuations of companies where sales have already been confirmed or pending confirmation and not part of court record. 

Written submission faxed in Appeal 461/2014;

The previous order of CIC would not apply as in present application under RTI I have sought copy of valuations reports in those cases where sale has been finalized and hence valuation report has become redundant and ceased to a commercial secret.

Why order is ex-facie corrupt and/or against human intelligence?;

i)  There is no mention of written submissions and no discussion on the same, which is evidence of either lack of human intelligence or deliberate act of corruption.

ii)  He further states that he asked me exact number of companies. This is neither an issue in the case nor raised by CPIO/AA or even by Information Commissioner Khan Yusufi during hearing. The contention is false and evidences lack of morality and basic human intelligence.

It is a folly to say; File an appeal. Such a contention makes the oath of office redundant. Corruption violates oath of office and is also an offense of moral turpitude. The only yardstick is whether the orders suffer from lack of ordinary human intelligence and prudence? If yes, than, further action be taken as per law. These orders have been passed at instance of D P Ojha official Liquidator presently posted in New Delhi. The orders are abuse of RTI act aimed at encouraging corruption and hiding corrupt acts and deeds. Hence you are requested to take appropriate action and also transfer all my cases from his bench to some other bench.”

This is a separate request to him to recuse himself from hearing my cases.

                                                                             K D Aggarwal

Speaking truth as crime.

Text of my application in my tryst of fight with corruption in Judiciary;

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl Misc 32489 of 2017

In CROCP 1 of 2012.

Court of its own Motion
Versus
Kapil Dev Aggarwal, Advocate.                                        

                                 

Application u/s 482 CRPC for placing documents on record.

Respectfully Showeth;

1.      That truth is allowed as a defense u/s 13 of Contempt’s of Court Act. Respondent is pleading truth as defense for which an application shall be filed at the appropriate stage of charge. The matter is still at pre-charge consideration.

2.      That there are five fold submissions at pre-charge consideration.

a)      Whether matter can proceed further in view of concealment of material facts by J. Surya Kant as now given in reply? The facts in connection with reminding him his oath are more particularly detailed in paras 1, 2 11, 22 (date 6.4.2011), 23, 23, 24, 25 and Annexures R-1 to R-10 of the reply. Link.

b)     Whether matter can proceed further in view of multiple counts of false evidence given by J. Surya Kant in his statement to Hon’ble Chief Justice? Gist of false evidence given by J. Surya Kant is given in Annexure R-46.  Link.

c)     Whether statement of Judge Surya Kant is without Jurisdiction having been made in CA 167/2011 which was for seeking his recusal? The said application seeking his recusal was filed under orders of the then Hon’ble Chief Justice?

d)     Whether reminding a Judge his oath; Scandalises, prejudices or interferes in the working of Hon’ble High Court.

e)      Whether matter can proceed further in view of bar created by Section 13 (1) of contempt’s of Courts Act which states;-

“no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of Court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it Substantially interferes, or tends to substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.”

        

Case was not pending when Judge Surya Kant was reminded his oath. Hence question of substantial interference with due course of Justice does not arise.

3.      Respondent vide his letter Dt 1.1.10 (Annexure R-5) had written that only way a Judge favors a party or an advocate is by violation of legal procedure, amendment / concealment of facts & Statute in the Judgment. There can never be any independent witness to prove any ‘dealings/relations’ between Judge and party / advocate. Respondent in his letter Dt 1.1.10 had written that such a conduct of judge should be treated as Judicial misconduct. Judge Surya Kant violated his oath while deciding CWP 10434/10 by multiple amendments and concealment of facts, multiple amendments and concealment of statute, multiple violations of procedure of laws and even replacement of order as detailed in paras 1, 2 11, 22(date 6.4.2011), 23, 23, 24, 25 of reply and Annexures R-1 to R-10. All of this was done out of favor and affection for kith and kin of a judge. Judge Surya Kant violated his ‘oath’ under which he had undertaken not to pass any order out of favor and affection. Respondent could not neglect to follow his own advice. Respondent reminded Judge Surya Kant his oath vide letter dt 4.6.2011. A complaint was simultaneously made to the Hon’ble Chief Justice by letter of even date. A complaint was also made to Hon’ble the chief Justice of India vide letter Dated 3.9.2011 Annexure R-28. Letter dt 19.9.2011 received from Hon’ble Supreme court of India is on record Annexure R-7. Affidavit was also filed.

4.      That the letter was just to remind Judge Surya Kant his ‘oath’, but even informing the judge that he has deviated from his sworn duty was in performance of duty of an advocate under Advocates Act. A single judge of Karnataka High Court while interpreting the duties and responsibilities of an advocate has stated that while making complaints against judges, the advocates should also boldly inform the concerned judge. The relevant text is reproduced in Para 13 of reply and is reproduced herein again for ready reference;

“The first persons who come to know that a judge is not conducting properly while functioning on the judicial side are the lawyers who are appearing in the case the moment an order is passed by the Judge in the court hall”

“It is the duty and the responsibility of the members of the Bar to ensure that the judiciary not only remains fiercely independent, upright, effective and useful for the people of the country, but also that the members of the judiciary do not go astray, do not deviate from their duties and responsibilities, do not misuse or abuse their powers and achieve this objective by boldly and openly bringing to the notice of the judge himself/ herself, if there are such instances or signs of deviations. (Emphasis supplied). This is a very onerous responsibility bestowed on the members of the Bar in our legal system and unless the lawyers fulfill this obligation towards the society, they will be failing in their professional duty!“ (Emphasis supplied).

5.      The duty and responsibilities of lawyers which the Hon’ble Judge was interpreting is mentioned in Rule 1 (1) of the professional conduct of advocates framed by Bar Council of India in exercise of powers under section 7 and 49 of Advocates Act;-

“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 is indeed a moot point as to how many advocates have performed their duty to this court. Someone always has to be the first. We have to draw a line at wrongdoing and take a stand against it. It’s also our divine imperative and moral responsibility apart from statutory duty.

6.      Respondent reminded Judge Surya Kant his oath after taking copy thereof under RTI. No judge can or should treat his own oath as a crime. No one forced a judge to take ‘oath’. If his ‘oath’ is not a crime, reminding it, is also not a crime. Relevant Laws on complaints against delinquent judges is sought to be placed on record as Annexure R-29-31, 6. After my instant complaint to hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court, The securitization matters were shifted from single bench to division bench Annexure 36. Several other letters by Respondent after which reforms happened are mentioned in para 15 of the reply. Letters do have positive effect if seen by honest and upright people.

7.      CA 580/11 is regarding payment being made by D P Ojha in name of fictitious security guards. Information was received about connivance of D P Ojha with others, hence request was made to Hon’ble the chief Justice to list CA 580/11 before Judge other than J Surya Kant on which the Hon’ble the Chief Justice ordered;-

“If any change is required, matter may be mentioned before the Judge” SD/ H’ Chief Justice.

In absence of any mechanism to record verbal submissions made in court, hence out of abundant caution a written application being CA 657/11 was filed seeking recusal of Judge Suryakant from hearing the matter. The order of Hon’ble Chief Justice was brought to his notice. The application for recusal can either be allowed and Judge recuses himself from the case and thereafter he would have no jurisdiction to pass any other statement or order, or Judge can dismiss application for recusal but then before making any other statement or order, judicial prudence demands that the Judge has to give time to applicant to file appeal. Thus in an application for recusal, a Judge has no jurisdiction to pass or make any statement except on merits of application for recusal, which was not done. The present statement has been made in CA 657/11 without first dealing with application for recusal on merits and hence is without Jurisdiction.

8.      Government of India, Ministry of corporate affairs considers respondent as an expert in corporate laws and matters relating official liquidators. Government of India had even sought his suggestions on the working papers for liquidator’s manual. Annexure R-39. Respondent was involved in exposing corruption by D P Ojha official liquidator attached to this court through Company Judge. Judge Surya Kant did not make any statement for criminal contempt on 4.6.2011 when respondent sent him his oath. He made the present statement in January 2012 when he became Company Judge. Annexure R-41. Records reveal,

a)      Thefts in companies in liquidation took place only when Judge Surya Kant was company Judge. Annexure R-40 and R-41. U/S 456(2) custody of assets of Companies in liquidation vest with Hon’ble high Court and whatever happens to assets or to Companies under liquidation is done under orders and control of Company Judge.  Annexure R-42.

b)     Judge Surya Kant approved the payments to security agencies in contravention of norms to ghost / fictitious employees. Norms required Identity proofs of security guards to be submitted to official Liquidator attached with this Court. Judge Surya Kant approved the payments without ID proofs thereby violating the norms.

c)      Sale of land were done and approved by Judge Surya kant on the basis of valuation which did not mention collectorate rate (an exception was valuation done by NITCON a govt agency).

9.      The opinion of public on present day judiciary can be inferred from public comments online edition Times of India on a statement of the then Chief Justice of India which were brought to his notice vide letter Dt 5.12.2016. Annexure R-45. link Matter is being contested on merits so that honest and upright judge in performance of his public duty may take action against the black sheep whose conduct is affecting image of other judges. Even Chief Justice(retd) B K Roy had written a letter DT 6.5.2005 implying that Judge Surya Kant had ante dated orders on judicial files. Annexure R-44 The said case CWP 6916 of 2004 Neeraj Sharma versus UOI involved kith and kin of a Judge. Even in this case in CM 5153/11, J. Surya Kant issued notice for 5.5.2011. As per his orders case was also listed on 5.5.2011 in CR 19 Annexure R-37, The order of ‘notice’ in CM 5153/11 for 5.5.2011 is no longer on file. Record now shows dismissal order of CM 5153/11 Dt 8.4.2011 Annexure R-10. CM 5153/11 was never listed on 8.4.2011. Annexure R-38.

10.    The documents sought to be placed on record are as under;

a)      Annexure R-28; Copy of complaint Dt 3.9.2011 to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.

b)     Laws relating to rights, duties, responsibilities of making complaints against delinquent judges.

         i)       Under advocates Act Annexure R-29

ii)      Under Judges Protection Act Annexure R-30

iii)     Hon’ble supreme Court of India In-house mechanism, letter by Central Government Dt 27.4.2012 Annexure R-31

iv)     Letter By Ministry of Law Dated 27.5.2011 already on record as Annexure R-6

c)      Annexure R-32; letter No 662/APIO/HC Dt 26.04.2012 from Hon’ble High Court (relevant to para 2 of reference)

d)     Annexure R-33; letter No 544/APIO/HC Dt 04.04.2012 from Hon’ble High Court (relevant to para 8 of reference).

e)      Annexure R-34; Letter No 6555 DT 3.2.2011 from DP Ojha official Liquidator

f)      Annexure R-35; Copy of order of this Court Dt 4.9.2012 in IO in CP 196/1997.

g)     Annexure R-36; letter No 839/APIO/HC Dt 16.05.2012 from Hon’ble High Court

h)     Annexure R-37; Copy of certified copy of cause list of CR No 19 dated 05.05.2011.

i)       Annexure R-38 copy of certified copy of cause list of Judge Surya Kant Dt 8.4.2011.

j)      Annexure R-39; Copy of letter Dt 10.4.2012 from Government of India, Ministry of Corporate.

k)      Annexure R-40; Copy of letter No 3003 Dated 21.9.2015 from official liquidator of attached to this court

l)       Annexure R-41; copy of letter No 672/PIO/HC Dated 6.10.2015

m)     Annexure R-42; copy of notings made by Reader Company branch dated 9.11.2009,

n)     Annexure R-43; copy of letter Dt 1.11.2014 regarding habitual obstruction of administration of justice by Judge Surya Kant.

o)      Annexure R-44; Copy of complaint Dated may 6, 2005 by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice B K Roy against Judge Surya Kant for tempering / anti dating judicial orders.

p)     Annexure R-45; Copy of letter Dt 5.12.2016 to H Chief Justice of India referring him online comments on Times of India.

q)     Annexure R-46; summary of false evidence given by Judge Surya Kant in present reference.

Case is still at same stage when reply was filed. It is therefore prayed that, In the interest of justice, Photostat copies of documents / annexures R-28 to R-46 be taken on record.

Chandigarh                Kapil Dev Aggarwal

Date; 3.9.2017          Counsel for respondent