अरविंद केजरीवाल की सरकार के कानून मंत्री सोमनाथ भारती रोज नए विवादों में घिरते नजर आ रहे हैं।
दिल्ली की साकेत कोर्ट ने केजरीवाल सरकार को झटका देते हुए कानून मंत्री सोमनाथ भारती के खिलाफ केस दर्ज करने के आदेश दिए हैं।http://www.amarujala.com/news/samachar/national/saket-court-ordered-to-fir-lodge-against-delhi-law-minister/ ,http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.com/2014/01/why-indian-government-is-promoting.html
Hon’ble friends whether court didn’t order to lodge F.I.R. in the following cases-
Where is gone one of six documents i.e. letter dated 28.8.2006 by counsel of petitioner?
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh
|Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 8:46 PM|
Hon’ble Sir- Please take a glance of following
Whether court can proceed in the absence of documents submitted
before it as documentary evidence in support of allegations. It may be
such documents may not exist. There is sheer anarchy in our courts.
Where is gone letter dated 28.8.2006? Who is accountable for missing
of this document?Why court is overlooking in ascertaining
accountability?Whether such practice is quite common in our
This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir to
direct appropriate authority to take action on my grievance instead of
overlooking the fact in the name of independence of judiciary. If your
applicant have no money to hire an advocate ,then concerned court will
not cooperate and overlook the genuine submissions. Your applicant is
too much aggrieved with the tyranny in the court proceedings. If the
rule of law is still alive in this country then blatant abuse of
process of court must be stopped. For this your applicant shall ever
pray you Hon’ble
Hon’ble friends-Right to reason is indispensable part of sound
judicial system as quoted by apex court on number of occasions but
what is going on in subordinate judiciary is beyond our imagination.
Please take a glance of these documents and conclude that whether E.O.
was nominated on 31.5.2006 or 31.5.2007 .How DPRO Mirzapur complied
the order of court when he made available the original copy of letter
dated-5.6.2007 of E.O. at the place of letter dated-31.5.2006 of D.M.
Mirzapur as categorically affirmed by E.O. in its repeated letters
that he was nominated through letter dated- 31.5.2006 by D.M.
Mirzapur. Whether the court is not biased and judicial member
committed contempt of court by falsely accepting that court order has
been complied by DPRO Mirzapur. Rs.1000.00 was paid to district judge
Mirzapur and court fees also paid by your friend but sought documents
were neither made available under R.T.I. Act 2005 nor under court
rules. Whether this is rule of law or sheer anarchy. Hon’ble C.J.I. is
not taking action on submissions even after repeated reminders.
Witness testimony is missing in the file of C.B.I. concerned with the sensational murder case of legislator Krishna Nand Ray and clerk of Gazipur district court informed that when file came to this court ,witness testimony was excluded.
During the investigation C.B.I. prepared the witness testimony but when the file reached to court ,it was missing from the file. Here this question arises that where is gone those important documents of court requisite for courts to proceed in the case. Now Hon’ble court is feeling troublesome and more difficulty is for defender Rakesh Pandey Advocate as how he may prepare the case so expressed displeasure to court on this lackadaisical approach. Matter is to be processed in the special court of C.B.I. i.e. in the court Judge A.K. Mendiratta at tees hazaari. Here file has reached but unfortunately without witness testimony. This case has been transferred from district court Gazipur to aforesaid court in accordance with the direction of Apex court. Court ordered special prosecutor of C.B.I. ,Investigation Officer and superintendent of police to search the witness testimony but they couldn’t succeed. I.O. told the C.B.I. court that witness testimony is not available in the C.B.I. office. Court sought the physical appearance of C.B.I. S.P. in order to get clarification but he didn’t appear before the court. Court issued the bailable warrant of Rs.5000.00 against S.P. Nirbhay Kumar.
Hon’ble friends -this is not unusual in our courts. For example -You may visit these links to know the truth of our courts.
http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.com/2013/09/how-court-records-are-going-to-be.htmlFate of the letter petition submitted on 22.09.2013 to Apex court of India reached to the applicant in the form of following letter of Deputy Registrar of Supreme Court of India.
All communications should be
addressed to the Registrar,
Supreme Court by designation ,
Not by name
Telegraphic address :-
By Registered AD
Dy. No:-38583/SC/PIL (E)/2013
From: Deputy Registrar ,
PIL (English) Branch ,
To: Shri Yogi M. P. Singh
Ref: Your complaint dated 22.09.2013
With reference to the complaint mentioned above, I have to return the original complaint . Your attention is drawn to the Article 235 of the constitution of India under which control over subordinate courts and persons belonging to judicial service of the state is with the High Courts.
You may take appropriate steps permissible under
provisions of law. No further correspondence in this regard will be entertained.
initial of under signed
Encl.: As above
Please take a glance of following links-
Article 235 in The Constitution Of India 1949
235. Control over subordinate courts The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution