Hon’ble Sh
Narendra Modi,
Prime Minister of
India,
South Block,
Raisina Hill
New Delhi-110011
SUB: Complaint against Hon’ble Justice Surya
Kant, Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh for false statements in
Court, favoritism and nepotism, misuse of position amounting to corruption and for
crimes against Justice & Independence of Judiciary.
Respectfully
Showeth;
I, KD Aggarwal, S/O RK Aggarwal R/O
1366, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh solemnly affirm and state:-
1. The issue of favoritism by some judges of
the higher judiciary in favor of sons and wards of judges has led to consistent
demand from the Bar Associations across the country for transfer of local
judges. Sh KD Aggarwal vide his letter Dt 1.1.2010 (Annexure P/1) had written that only way a Judge can indulge
in favoritism is by amendment and / or concealment of statute and / or facts in
the order/Judgment and there can never be any independent witness to prove
favoritism. He wrote that such an action be treated as violation of oath of
office by the Judge and action taken. Sh KD Aggarwal experienced one such act
of gross favoritism and accordingly filed a complaint Dt 4.6.2011 (Annexure P/2) with the then H’
Acting Chief Justice against Justice Surya Kant giving details as to how and
why the act of favoritism is apparent and gross from the Order itself and
therefore requested for appropriate action. In good faith he also privately
pointed out the said deviations from one’s oath of Office to Justice Surya Kant
vide letter of 4.6.11. Section 3(2) of Judges Protection Act and “in
house mechanism” was invoked
by KD Aggarwal as per his duties under Rules framed by Bar Council of India as
well as rights and duties of a citizen under Constitution of India. A formal
complaint was also lodged with Hon’ble supreme Court of India vide letter Dt
3.9.2011 duly acknowledged vide letter from Registrar, Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India vide its letter Dt 19.9.2011, (Annexure
P/3). Justice Surya Kant filed a
counter complaint Dt 9.1.2012 (Annexure
P/4) for initiating action of criminal contempt against Sh KD Aggarwal,
who was issued Show Cause Notice being CROCP No. 1/2012. Reply was filed and
matter is stand still.
2. By Virtue of his act to uphold judicial
propriety and independence, Sh KD Aggarwal was amazed to receive notice for
criminal contempt. A perusal of the complaint and records shows that the
criminal contempt reference contains
several statements by Justice Surya Kant which are not only patent lies but are
maliciously concocted amounting to falsification of judicial records. It
is established from pre-existing records that several outright lies form part
of the reference order. In addition,
judicial record has been fabricated, orders have been ante-dated and
conduct of Justice Surya Kant is further aggravated by the threats given to the
KD Aggarwal in the open Court preventing him from discharging duties. All these
circumstances compel Sh KD Aggarwal to invoke present complaint to yourself and
invoke Section 3(2) of Judges Protection Act against Judge Surya Kant for false
statements/evidence in Court, favoritism and nepotism, misuse of position
amounting to corruption and crimes against Justice & Independence of
Judiciary and obstruction in administration of justice by Justice Surya Kant,
Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.
3. Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant does not enjoy any immunity for crimes
committed as a Judge. Section 3(2) of Judges Protection Act gives exceptions to
protection.;-
Section 3 (2) of
Judges protection Act; “Nothing in sub-section
(1) shall debar or affect in any manner the power of the Central Government or the State Government or the Supreme Court of India or any High Court
or any other authority under any law for the time being in force to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal or
departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a
Judge.”
Section 19 of IPC defines ‘judge’ in inclusive definition;- “Judge".--The
word "Judge" denotes not only every person who is officially
designated as a Judge, but also … “
4. That Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant, is liable
to be charged and tried as per law inter alia for the charges of false
statements/evidence in Court, favoritism and nepotism, misuse of position
amounting to corruption and crimes against Justice & Independence of
Judiciary and obstruction in administration of justice.
Charge I.
A) Making false
statements in judicial records and fabricating false complaints;
B) Making
complaints against citizens which are not in good faith and lack bona fide and
honesty.
Articles of
Charge;
The statement made by Hon’ble Justice
Surya Kant to Hon’ble the Chief Justice under section 14 of the Contempt’s of
Courts act is evidence in chief under said act. The said statement is against records. It is not made in good
faith and lacks Bona fide. Section 52 of Indian Penal Code defines “Good faith”
as
Section
52 Good Faith; Nothing is said to be done or believed in "good
faith" which is done or believed without due care and attention.
Good faith and Honesty is lacking in
the statement. The details of false statements which have been made are being
taken para wise as per paras of Criminal Contempt 1/2012 and not from the point
of their gravity. False statement by a sitting High Court Judge is a false
statement and which one of the false statement is more grievous is immaterial.
The whole reference is a bundle of lies, however in this complaint only such
lies are being taken which can be so proved false in black and white as per
records in existence before the complaint Dt 9-1-2012 was made by Justice Surya
Kant.
5. False
statement made by Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant in Para 2 of Criminal Contempt 1
of 2012;
Para 2 “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 by me when I was sworn in as a Judge of this Court on 9.1.2004. The
assistant public information officer of the High Court supplied an attested
copy of the said format to Mr K.D. Aggarwal on 12.5.2011. Mr K.D.Aggarwal
thereafter addressed a letter dated 4.6.2011 to me imputing motives while
deciding the above mentioned case and claimed that I had no ‘moral right’ to
hold the office as I had violated the ‘Oath’ which I took ‘to gain access to
that office’. According to Mr K.D. Aggarwal, I wanted to give “pecuniary
advantage” to the son of my “former colleague”. Mr Aggarwal sermoned me “to be
an uncle and not to be Judge”. Mr K.D.Aggarwal also enclosed a Photostat copy
of the oath Format after scrapping the phrase “do solemnly affirm”.
Judge Suryakant thus implied that I have interpolated his oath of office by
scrapping the words “do solemnly affirm” quoted by him.
Facts as per records / Proof of Falsehood;
i). A 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 either by him
or by the Office who had prepared his oath. Either way he himself admits in writing that he had forgotten his oath
taken by him while being appointed as Judge high Court and that I was right in
reminding it to him. There is no scrapping of words “do solemnly affirm” by me as falsely stated, the same scrapping
would be seen in most other oaths also. He made false statement in judicial
proceedings.
ii). His contention that I applied for certified copy of his oath
AFTER I received certified copy of his order is also false. Facts are opposite.
Copy of his oath was applied on 21.4.2011(Annexure P/6) and attested under
RTI on 12.5.2011, whereas he had kept file of CWP 10434/10 maliciously with him
till 26.5.2011(Annexure P/5) i.e. for 50 days
AFTER the order and sent the file to branch two days before start of vacations.
Certified copy of order was prepared
on 13.6.2011, received on 22.6.2011. April comes before June, not the other
way.
iii). In
my letter, I advised him ‘to be a Judge and not to be an Uncle’. Direct
opposite of what he says I sermoned him.
6. False
statement made by Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant in Para 3-4 of Criminal Contempt 1
of 2012;
Para 3 “Mr K.D. Aggarwal also appended a copy of the
‘Review Application’ purported to have been filed in the above mentioned case
alongwith the above-stated letter addressed to me. Besides several ‘stinking’
averments made in the review application, it was also averred in its Para 6
that “there is no judicial consideration in the order. It appears to be the
result of fear, favor or ill-will”.
Para 4; “Since the above mentioned letter alongwith the
alleged review application was dropped at my residence in an ordinary
(un-registered) envelope, I kept on waiting for the listing of the ‘review
application’. Subsequently, it transpired that no such review application had
been filed”.
I am not aware
whether or not the aggrieved Industry preferred any appeal against my order Dt
7.4.2011.”
Facts as per records / Proof of Falsehood;
iv. His
contention that no review was filed is false. Review was filed in the Registry
on 2.5.2011 vide Diary No 664197.
v. His contention
that I dropped letter at his house is also false. Letter Dt 4.6.2011(Annexure P/2a) was delivered to his reader in Court on 4.6.11 which could have been
proved from record if CCTV Cameras were allowed.
vi. His
contention that he does not know about filing of appeal is also false. Whether appeal
is filed or not, is known by click on his computer.
7. False
statement made by Justice Surya Kant in Para 5 of Criminal Contempt 1 of 2012;
“I did not deem it appropriate to initiate any suo
moto action against Mr K.D.Aggarwal at that stage primarily for the reason
that 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 KD Aggarwal.”
Facts as per
Records; Proof of Falsehood;
vii. His
contention that my letter appeared to be anonymous is false to his knowledge.
My Letter was signed(Annexure P/2a). It was on my letterhead with phone nos, address,
enclosed in printed envelop of my office. Review application was signed. Every
letter carrying signature, name, contact nos and address of the person carries
a presumption of authenticity particularly when they enclosed copy of his oath
supplied by High Court under RTI(Annexure P/6a).
8. False
statement made by Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant in Para 8 of Criminal Contempt 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 ..”
Facts as per
Records;
Three lies are contained herein. One it
was not a complaint. Two reference
was to only one employee not some
employees. Third that it was baseless.
viii) It
was not a complaint but suggestions. (Annexure
P/7).
ix) Letter
mentions ‘one’ employee out of ‘eight’. (Annexure
P/8). ‘One’ does not become ‘Some’. Being a Company Judge, he knew the there
were ‘several’ employees in Liquidation section.
x) By
saying allegations are baseless without holding any enquiry, Justice Surya Kant
scandalized his Court as he was nowhere called upon to adjudicate the
authenticity of complaint. By giving a judgment on an issue which was not
before him, Justice Surya Kant acted in a manner unbecoming of a Judge and
caused obstruction of Justice. If an enquiry has been held, it could be
established that complaint was correct. Sh Jagjit Singh was the dealing assistant when
unauthorized payments were made to unauthorized persons by Official Liquidator
of high Court i.e. payments to persons was made which were over and above the
norms approved by Hon’ble High court for valuers and who were not even on the
approved list. Similarly crores of rupees have been allowed to be paid to
security agencies by Official Liquidator in name of persons who were never even
born by not ensuring compliance of conditions of their empanelment i.e ID
proofs.
9. False
and fabricated statement made by Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant in Para 9 of
Criminal Contempt 1 of 2012;
xi) “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’. He further states that KD Aggarwal had submitted a bill for payment of
his professional charges. The said Bill was rejected by the official liquidator
and it appears that the decision of duly approved by Hon’ble Justice Rajive
Bhalla in his capacity as a company judge.”
Facts as per
Records Proof of Falsehood;
xii). At one
stage J Surya Kant states that he does not know the contents because they are
in a sealed cover and thereafter he narrates the contents also. Either his
first statement is false or the second is false since both are inherently
opposite to each other. 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” of R-14 and to send to Hon’ble the Chief
Justice and orally attach it with CROCP 1/12.
xiii). J Surya
Kant conceals that Bill was dated 18.12.2002. The complaint against D P Ojha
was filed on 3.8.2009 BEFORE his motivated rejection of Bill was two years later
on 3.2.2011. The contention of J Surya kant that year 2011 comes before 2009 is
false.
xiv). On
information being sought from High Court under RTI, to submit copy of
report/rejection of Bill filed by D P Ojha and ‘approval of rejection’ by Judge
Rrajive Bhalla, the Hon’ble high Court informed that no such report was filed*.
Hence question of approval by J Rajive Bhalla does not arise. There is no
approval. J Surya Kant has knowingly made false statement.
10. False
and fabricated statement made by Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant in Para 10 of
Criminal Contempt 1 of 2012;
“As Mr K D Aggarwal could not stand any
Court decision against his wishes…” and then he says that Mr KD Aggarwal starts
filing complaints.
Facts as per
Records;
xv) 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 (Annexure P/10)
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.” The complaint against D P Ojha was filed on
3.8.2009 BEFORE his motivated rejection of Bill which was two years after on
3.2.2011. The contention of J Surya kant that year 2011 comes before 2009 is false.
xvi) No order is
made against KD Aggarwal by Justice Rajive Bhalla till date (Annexure P/9) even though KD
Aggarwal has filed complaints against Justice Rajive Bhalla to uphold
independence of Judiciary (Annexure
P/11).
xvii) Order Dt
7.4.11 of Justice Surya Kant in CWP 10434/10, does not affect the clients of KD
Aggarwal, (petitioners in CWP 10434/10) in any manner. Vide P/17-19, valuation
of property is Rs 43.00 lacs. Petitioners had already offered more than the
valuation of properties to the Bank. Order had nil effect.
11. False
and fabricated statement made by Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant in Para 13 of
Criminal Contempt 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”
Facts as per
Records;
xviii) Statement is presumptive,
scandalous, defamatory and against record for the following reasons.
A) Petitioners
in CWP 10434/10 is one blind man and his 2 sons. They are living hand to mouth,
wear tattered clothes and apart from a small house (in disputed ‘mortgage’)
have no assets, negative net worth and no income cannot be assured any sort of
monetary based Guarantee (none has ever been given by me).
B) The averments
does not corroborate with facts of the case. Order does not affect the
petitioners, hence I, 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 did not affect them. Question was of
violation of oath of office by Justice Surya Kant by acting under influence of
favor and affection for Sh Arun palli Sr. Advocate s/o Justice (retd) PK Palli,
hence matter was taken up on administrative side. 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. The allegations are
without basis.
12. False
and fabricated statement made by Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant in Para 13 of
Criminal Contempt 1 of 2012;
“There allegations against Hon’ble
Justice Rajive Bhalla where he is accused of conniving with Official Liquidator
to plunder crores of rupees…”
Facts as per
Records;
xix) There is no such allegation about
crores then or since then.
13. All the statements made from 8 onwards by
Justice Surya Kant are derived from a letter Dt 14.12.2011 (Annexure P/12) from D P Ojha, Official Liquidator whereas Order of
Criminal contempt is 5 days earlier on 9.12.2011 (Annexure P/13) and letter dated 14.12.2011 was ordered to be
listed first before a different Judge and later at the asking of Registrar
Judicial was listed with CROCP 1/12 vide order Dt 14.1.2012 (Annexure P/14) of Hon’ble the chief
Justice i.e. 5 days after
complaint Dt 9.1.2012 by Justice Surya Kant.
Charge II.
Fabrication of
Judicial Records of High Court by ante dating his Orders.
Articles of charge;
14. That on 31.3.2011, Sh Arun Palli, Sr Advocate
had made deliberate false statements in the Court of Justice Surya Kant.
Application for Perjury u/s 340 CR.P.C. was filed against this on 6.4.11
bearing CM No 5153/11 (Annexure P/15)
which came up for hearing on 7.4.11 before Justice Surya Kant who issued notice
in CM 5153/11 for 5.5.11. The CM 5153/11 was listed for hearing on 5.5.11 at S.
No 212 before another bench (Annexure
P/16). However since file had not been received the case was not
called. Inspection of records was carried out on 13.7.12 and record reveals
that CM 5153/11 which was listed on 5.5.11 stands dismissed a month earlier
vide order Dt 8.4.11 (Annexure P/17).
The said CM was never listed on 8.4.11.
Firstly notice in
C.M 5153/11 was issued for 5.5.11, had the CM 5153/11 been dismissed on 8.4.11
or on 7.4.2011, there is no cause for
it to be shown in the cause list for 5.5.11. Secondly by no stretch of
imagination it can be believed that a case listed on a 7.4.11 can be dismissed
on 8.4.11 on which date it is not listed. Thirdly it could not be
believed that a case could have been dismissed limine on 7.4.2011 as (notice
was issued for 5.5.2011) CM was also shown in cause list of 5.5.2011. This is fabrication of records by ante dating
the orders. Any
prudent person would believe order has been ante dated to favor Arun Palli Sr.
Advocate S/O Justice PK Palli (retd). Order Dt 8-4-2011 bears the signatures of
Justice Surya Kant. In CM 5153/11, false statements are attributed to Sh Arun
Palli. Hence in the (antedated) order Justice Surya Kant does not mention any
facts stated in CM 5153/11. Inspection of file was sought on 30.3.2012 but
could not be done as file was reportedly with an official of High Court for
most of April 2012.
15. That Justice Surya Kant admits to have passed two different orders on 11.1.12 in
COCP 2085/11 (Now CP 53/12) as stated by him in Court on 2.5.12. Passing of two
different orders in one case on same date is uncommon and never done, which is
highly irregular and suspicious and lacks bona fide. Why was the need for Justice Surya Kant to clarify the fact of second order after a gap of 4
months which was done on 2.5.2012. Why, COCP 2085/11 was listed as CP only
after April vide Order Dt 2-5-2012 and not on 11.1.2012. The subsequent order
was ante dated. Inspection of the file has been declined, (Annexure P/18) even though one
of the 2 Orders dated 11.1.12 is attached by
Order of Justice Surya kant with CROCP against Sh KD Aggarwal.
16. The
then Chief Justice B K Roy had also filed a complaint DT 6.5.2005 against Judge
Surya kant for changing and ante dating orders out of favor and affection for
kith and kin (Annexure P/19). The matter relates to CWP 6916/2004 wherein allotment by UT of 5.86 acres of prime land @ Rs 900 sq yards
was challanged. Whereas three years earlier the same UT Govt had allotted
adjacent land to Bar Council @ Rs 5,800 per sq yards. After pronouncing the main order with the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice
B K Roy, cancelling the allotment, a mysterious 2nd order (upholding
the allotment) had appeared of “same” date after Chief Justice B K Roy had
left. The 2nd order was never
originally on file was mentioned by none else than Chief justice B K Roy vide
his letter dated May 6, 2005 to this Court(Annexure P/19). Beneficiaries
of illegal allotment were sons of a Judge.
Charge III; Favoritism and Nepotism.
Article of charge;
17. Vide Letter Dt 3.9.2011, Sh KD Aggarwal had
filed complaint against Justice Surya Kant for subverting Judicial independence
and violation of his oath of office by acting under influence of favor and
affection for Sh Arun palli Sr. Advocate s/o Justice (retd) PK Palli in the
matter of CWP 10434/10 Sangrur Milk Products Vs District Magistrate Sangrur and
Ors. CWP 10434/10 was filed on 25-5-2010 by KD Aggarwal as counsel for
petitioners impugning Order of District Magistrate Sangrur, (Resptd 1) Dt
7.5.10 and notice u/s 13(2) of Canara Bank Dt 8-12-2009. Respondent No 3-4 i.e.
Canara bank’s had engaged Mr R S Bhatia, advocate and had filed a caveat.
Matter was listed before court (before some other bench) on 3-6-2010 and after
hearing the parties at length (for about 2 hours), an order of Status quo was
granted on 3.6.10 (Annexure P/20).
On the next date, Sh R S Bhatia Advocate for Canara bank filed reply before
Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant, who extended the stay vide order dt 27.7.10 (Annexure P/21). Case is adjourned
to 28.9.2010. On 28.9.2010, (Annexure
P/22)Sh R S Bhatia, Advocate for Bank again appears before Justice
Surya Kant and case is adjourned to 11.2.2011. Thereafter, dramatically Mr R S
Bhatia advocate was replaced by Bank with Mr. Arun Palli Sr. Adv. S/O Justice P
K Palli (retd). On 11.2.2011, at request of Sh Arun Palli case is adjourned to
31.3.2011. On 31.3.2011, Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant vacated the order of stay (Annexure P/23). At the time of
vacation of stay, Pleadings were not complete. Respondent No 1 District
Magistrate, Sangrur whose order was impugned had not yet filed any reply, there
were no new facts, no change in circumstances and none pleaded. No reasons were
given by Justice Surya Kant for vacation of stay, particularly when a reasoned
order of Status quo was passed earlier by the predecessor of Justice Surya Kant
after hearing the counsel for the bank at length. While vacating the Stay
order, the Counsel for Petitioner who had right to begin arguments was not
heard and for hearing, matter was adjourned for mere 7 days to 7.4.2011.
Apprehending change of Roster (which in fact was changed from next date i.e.
8.4.2011) and thus in order to keep the case with himself, Justice Surya Kant
ordered it as “part heard” which was uncalled for as pleadings were not
complete, (to best of knowledge of KD Aggarwal, Motion cases are never shown as
“part heard’. Even in regular cases ‘part heard’ is shown when both the
counsels agree). On 7.4.11 the case was dismissed and facts and Securitization
Act were amended as detailed in letter Dt 4.6.2011. Four months later, Justice
Surya Kant filed complaint against the said advocate being Criminal contempt
1/12 in an act of personal vendetta by blatant abuse of the Contempt’s of
Courts Act.
Charge IV.;
Issuing threats to
advocates.
Article of Charge;
18. That on 21.10.2011, KD Aggarwal appeared
before the Justice Surya Kant in a different matter. Justice Surya Kant calls
him to stand before the desk of his reader and proceeded to issue threats in
open Court and says;
“You have only dealt with soft judges, you do not know
me.”
I now know everything about you. I will finish your
career”
“You do not know me and cannot even
imagine what I can do to you …”
KD Aggarwal explained that letter dt
4.6.2011 was personal communication to explain that a Judge is supposed to be
impartial. However Justice Surya Kant continued to issue threats including
bodily harm or forcible physical restraint. Under threats, Justice Surya Kant
recorded the statement of KD Aggarwal. (Annexure
P/24) The said statement was not voluntary. While signing, it was made
clear that statement was recorded under coercion. KD Aggarwal wrote “In view of
annoyance shown by court”. Thereafter Justice Surya Kant countersigned the
same, verifying correctness of the rider. Justice Surya Kant thus accepted the
correctness of rider that statement was not voluntary and made under coercion
‘annoyance shown by Judge’ / under threats. The Justice Surya Kant thus
admitted to having committed contempt of his own Court u/s 16 of COCP Act when
he gave threats to advocate, without any such matter being listed. Letter Dt
4.6.2011 was not listed for hearing before Justice Surya Kant in which he gave
threats of bodily harm and finishing career etc and took the above statement by
misuse of his official position. Affidavit Dt 21.10.11 qua above facts was sent
to Hon’ble Apex Court vide Speed post Dated 21.10.2011. (Annexure P/25)
Charge V.
A) Preventing
Advocates from performing their statutory duty under Advocates Act.
B) Preventing
citizens from taking their constitutional rights, duties and obligations
invoking ‘in house procedure’ of Hon’ble Courts of making Complaints against
Judges for misdemeanor, favoritism, nepotism and or corruption.
C) Misuse of
process of law to settle personal vendetta.
Articles of
charge;
19. 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, states;-
“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.”
20. Sh KD Aggarwal, advocate had filed complaint
against Justice Surya Kant on administrative side, same was filed in discharge
of a statutory duty of an advocate towards Dignity of Hon’ble High Court and
independence of Judiciary. Annoyed by his complaint and in order to punish SH
KD Aggarwal for doing his duty, Justice Surya Kant, Judge Punjab and Haryana
High Court filed counter complaint against said advocate. He thus gave a
message that any advocate who does above mentioned duty shall be sent to jail.
He thus caused obstruction in flow of justice by trying to stifle or muzzle
complaints for misdemeanor, favoritism, nepotism and or corruption against him
thereby committing contempt of his own court.
21. It is the right and duty of every citizen to
make a complaint against any judge for misdemeanor, favoritism, nepotism and
/or corruption. There is “in house mechanism” to receive and consider such
complaints and take action in appropriate cases. Justice Surya Kant, Judge
Punjab and Haryana High Court caused serious obstruction in Justice when he
filed complaint against a citizen of India for performing his constitutional
duty. He thus gave a message to people that any citizen who invokes “in house
mechanism” against him shall be sent to jail. He caused obstruction in flow of
justice by trying to stifle complaints of corruption, misdemeanor, favoritism,
nepotism against him. Similar modus operandii by Justice Surya Kant of making
complaints against citizens invoking “section 3(2) of Judges protection Act”
is reported in “The Tribune“ dt May 31, 2012. From the above facts, it is apparent that Justice Surya Kant has
threatened to the public in general that any citizen who makes complaint
against him shall be sent to jail. He has thus seriously obstructed the
flow of justice, by resorting to misdemeanor, favoritism, misuse of his
position and nepotism and corruption.
22. That in his complaint, Sh KD Aggarwal,
Advocate had accused Judge Surya Kant of acting out of favor and affection for
Sh Arun palli S/O Justice (retd) PK Palli. Nemo
iudex in causa sua. Judge Surya Kant could not be judge of said
complaint. He committed contempt of his own court when he himself declared that
complaint filed against him as contempt of court. He misused his office to file
complaint Dt 9.1.11 out of personal vendetta to settle personal score. He thus
lowered the dignity of Court and also scandalized the Court
23. Charge
VI.
Theft of assets
from companies in Liquidation;
Articles of
charge;
Vide my letter Dt 31.8.09, I inter-alia
informed the Company Judge that thefts of assets were going on in companies
under liquidation whose custody is with H’ High Court as per 456(2) of
Companies Act. In response to my letter Dt 31.08.2009, reader liquidation vide
statement Dt 9.11.2009 stated;(Annexure
P/26)
“The branch is
working smoothly under the kind control/orders of Hon’ble the Company Judge and
as per the Company Court rules, 1959 and guidelines by this court from time to
time.”
Thefts occurred in the year 2012 and
2013 in following companies (Annexure
P/27);-
1. Veekay Fibres Ltd In liqn.
2. Hallmark healthcare Ltd in Liqn
3. Organic Chemoils Ltd in liqn
4. Mangla cotex Ltd in liqn
I asked under RTI as to who was company
Judge during 2012, 2013. PIO Pb & Hy High Court Vide letter No 1672 Dt
8.10.2015, informed that Judge Suryakant was the company Judge during 2012,
2013 during period when above thefts occurred. (Annexure P/28)
24. Charge
VII.
Causing
obstruction to Court work, staff and litigants;
Articles of
charge;
While every other judge starts work at
exactly 10 AM in Chandigarh, J Surya Kant is in habit of coming late from Home
everyday by 30-45 minutes, thereby obstructing work of courtroom no 5.
25. Charge
VIII.
Ordering
destruction of Court Records;
Articles of
charge;
Constitution of India Article 215; High
Courts to be courts of record.- Every High Court shall be a court of record and
shall have all the powers of such a court …..”
Judge Surya Kant headed the committee which
amended Rules regarding designations of senior advocates incorporating
destruction of records and passing unreasoned orders in the rules which is
opposite to what Constitution lays down. The aforesaid amendments are;-
3.(e)(ii)
Records of such papers be destroyed after the result is notified
by obtaining orders of the Chief Justice.
3.(e)(iii)
Full court shall not be required to record reasons ..
26. Charge
IX.
Appointment for
dubious and immoral considerations;
Articles of
charge;
In my knowledge, only
case, to challenge the proposed appointment of anyone as judge of high court
was CWP 18508/2003 P & H High Court pointing out that J Surya kant was a
person with alleged dubious antecedents. It is stated therein 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 other judges.
Annexure P/1 lists some of the publically known allegations about J Surya Kant;
“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?
Many lawyers and judges know the identity of female
relative of Judge Surya Kant mentioned as “…” in the above petition.
27. Charge
X.
Mis-use of
‘part-heard’ to favor a party or lawyer.
Articles of
charge;
If CCTV Cameras were installed in court
room of J Surya Kant, it would reveal that J Surya Kant mentions ‘part heard’
even when case is neither listed for arguments nor argued. ‘part heard’ is
never mentioned in motion cases. The concept of ‘part heard’ is used in regular
cases only if arguments have taken over a day and that too with consent of both
counsels. In motion hearing, if a case requires arguments of several hours,
then law requires matter to be admitted for regular hearing. J Surya Kant
habitually mentions ‘part heard’ even in motion cases to keep the case with
himself out of favor, affection or ill-will in favor/against a lawyer or litigant.
HUMBLE PRAYER;
It is
therefore humbly prayed that based on the above facts and irrefutable
documentary evidence and verifiable facts, action be
initiated against Justice Surya Kant of Punjab & Haryana High Court for:
1.
Misuse of position, favoritism, corruption and nepotism
2.
For scandalizing the Court,
3.
Lowering the dignity of the Court
4.
For obstruction of Justice,
KD Aggarwal, Advocate
Verified that contents of above affidavit are true to my
knowledge no part is false and noting material is concealed therein.
KD Aggarwal, Advocate.
KD Aggarwal, Advocate.
I N D E X
S No Anx. Particulars date page
1. Complaint 16.02.2017 1-21
2. P/1 letter
by Complainant 1.1.2010 22-24
3. P/2 letter
to Chief Justice 4.6.2011 25-29
4. P/3 letter
from registrar SC 19.9.11 30
5. P/4 Criminal
contempt 09.01.12 31-36
6. P/5 letter
from HC 26.4.12 37
7. P/6 letter
from HC 12.5.11 38-39
8. P/7 letter
from HC 18.5.12 40
9. P/8 letter
from HC 04.4.12 41
10. P/9 letter
from H C 09.3.11 42
11. P/10 letter
by Comp' 03.08.09 43
12. P/11 letter
by Comp' 14.03.11 44-46
13. P/12 Letter
by O. Liq 14.12.11 47-52
14. P/13 Order crl cont' 09.12.11 53
15. P/14 order
by H CJ 14.01.12 54-55
16. P/15 CM
5153/11 04.04.11 56-62
17. P/16 cause
List 05.05.11 5.05.11 63-64
18 P/17 Order in CM 5153/11 08.04.11 65
19 P/18 Letter
from H HC 13.09.12 66
20. P/19 Complaint
by CJ
BK Roy against
Surya Kant 11.06.05 67
21. P/20 Order
in CWP 10434/10 3.06.10 68
22. P/21 Order
in CWP 10434/10 27.07.10 69
23. P/22 Order
in CWP 10434/10 28.09.10 70
24. P/23 Order
in CWP 10434/10 31.03.11 71
25. P/24 Statement by threat 21.10.11 72
26. P/25 Affidavit
of threat 21.10.11 73-74
27 P/26 Statement
of Reader Liq.09.11.09 75
28 P/27 Letter
from OL 21.09.15 76
29 P/29 Letter
from HC 06.10.15 77
Chandigarh K
D Aggarwal
Date; 16.02.2017 Advocate
No comments:
Post a Comment