Thursday, March 27, 2014

Review Petition in PIL against Sahara Credit Cooperative Society



In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Review Petition No.  325 of 2014

In Re: Writ Petition No 2008 (M/B) of 2014


Amitabh Thakur and another                                                 Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others                                                         Respondents

Index

S No
Description of documents relied upon

Page No


From
To
1.
List of Dates and Events (separate)
Separate

2.
Memo of Review Petition


3.
Copy of judgement and order dated 10/03/2014 passed by Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J. , Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadyaya, J. in Writ Petition No.- 2008 (M/B) of 2014




Lucknow                                                  (Amitabh Thakur)(Dr Nutan Thakur)
Dated-  22/03/2014                                                      Petitioner in Person
                                                                                                # 094155-34525

                                                                       


In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Review Petition No.  325 of 2014

In Re: Writ Petition No 2008 (M/B) of 2014


Amitabh Thakur and another                                                 Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others                                                         Respondents

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

S No               Date                                                   Event                       
1.     06/03/2014                                  Writ Petitioner No 2008 (M/B) of
                                                           
2014 filed by the petitioner
2.     10/03/2014                                  Impugned judgement and order                                                                   passed by Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,
                                                            J.  and Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
                                                            Upadhyaya, J. in the  aforesaid Writ 
                                                            Petition whereby this Writ Petition
                                                            has been dismissed on ground and
                                                            reasoning which seem to need a
                                                            review to be done, because
                                                            of reasons being explained in the
                                                            accompanied Review Petition
Hence this review petition

Lucknow                                                  (Amitabh Thakur)(Dr Nutan Thakur)
Dated-  22/03/2014                                                      Petitioner in Person
                                                                                                # 094155-34525
                                                                       

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Review Petition No.  325 of 2014
In Re: Writ petition No-             2008 of 2014 (M/B) (PIL-Civil)








1.     Amitabh Thakur, aged about 45 years, s/o Sri T N Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
2.     Dr Nutan Thakur, aged about 40 years, w/o Sri Amitabh Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow--------                                                                                                                      Petitioners
Versus
1.     Union of India through Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
2.     Reserve Bank of India through Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai
3.     Securities and Exchange Board of India through its Chairman, 'G' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),  Mumbai 400051
4.     Central Registrar, Multi State Cooperative Societies, Government of India, c/o Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
5.     Sahara India Parivar, Sahara India Center, 2, Kapoorthala Comlex, Aliganj, Lucknow
6.     Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Sahara India Complex, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow
                                                                                    ------- Respondents

Review Petition against the judgement and order dated 10/03/2014 passed by Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.  and Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya J. in Writ Petition No.- 2008 (M/B) of 2014

The petitioner, named above, most respectfully prefers the instant review petition on the following amongst other grounds-
Grounds
1.     Because the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma vs Mayawati & others, reported in JT 2013 (12) SC 155 has summarized the principles for exercising the jurisdiction of review  saying-“16) Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: (A) When the review will be maintainable:-(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;(iii) Any other sufficient reason”
2.     Because the words “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520 and Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., JT 2013 (8)SC 275.
3.     Because in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki (Supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court said-“The three cases in which alone mere review is permitted are those of new material overlooked by excusable misfortune, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or "any other sufficient reason." The first two alternatives do not apply in the present case, and the expression "sufficient," if this were all, would naturally be read as meaning sufficiency of a kind analogous to the two already specified, that is to say, to excusable failure to bring to the notice of the Court new and important matters, or error on the face of the record” so as to conclude-“ So construing it they interpret the words "any other sufficient reason" as meaning a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously
4.     Because the order dated 10/03/2014 needs a review for “any other sufficient reason at least analogous to those specified immediately previously”.
5.     Because this Hon’ble Court dismissed the Writ Petition by saying that during the course of arguments, the petitioner No 1 stated that he did not want to argue this matter any further before the given Bench, which was reiterated by petitioner no.2
6.     Because the petitioners have fully realized that they were at complete fault at having stopped their arguments mid way in this matter and have fully understood that they should have continued their arguments before this Hon’ble Court and should have made all possible endeavours to satisfy all the queries presented/posed by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice and for the larger public interest involved in the matter. They fully accept their fault of having stopped midway in their arguments in this matter of extreme public importance where the interest of millions of investors is at stakes. Hence the petitioners tender their unconditional apology for having stopped midway in this matter related with millions of poor and ordinary investors whose life-time savings have the risk of getting jeopardized because of the dismissal of this Petition. They state in unequivocal words that they shall now present their complete case before this Hon’ble Court to the best of their abilities so as to satisfy the queries of this Hon’ble Court in this matter of extreme public importance. It was a complete mistake on the part of the petitioners to have stopped midway in their arguments without thinking even for once that they were not presenting a personal case where only their own interests were concerned but were actually arguing a matter where interests of millions of poor and ordinary investors is at heavy stakes because of the alleged improprieties being conducted by respondents No 5 and 6, Sahara India Parivar and Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited and hence they had no right to play with the interests of these millions of investors as it got dismissed merely because of stopping the arguments midway. Hence the petitioners feel truly ashamed of themselves of having forgotten the interests of these millions of investors while arguing their matter before this Hon’ble Court in this Public Interest Litigation and thus having brought a situation where this PIL got dismissed
7.     Because the petitioners, who had previously forgotten the mighty responsibility on their shoulders of pursuing the interests of millions of investors, pray with utmost humbleness that this Hon’ble Court, being the epitome of justice and virtuousness, be kind enough to review its order and recall it, thereby giving the petitioners another opportunity to pursue the matter which is not related with the petitioners personally but is related with millions of poor and helpless investors whose interests this Hon’ble Court is never going to leave in lurch
8.     Because hence whatever happened on the first date of hearing because of petitioner No 1 and 2 may kindly be forgiven by this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court may kindly permit them another opportunity to present their case and to make an endeavour to answer all possible queries by this Hon’ble Court on this issue so that this Hon’ble Court finally provides justice to all these investors.
9.     Because this is a reason sufficient in itself for the Hon’ble Court to take up the matter, review and recall its order and to issue suitable directions and orders in this case
Prayer

Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased-

1.      to allow the review petition thereby recalling this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 10/03/2014 in this Writ Petition No 2008 of 2014 (M/B) and to permit the petitioners to present their case afresh before this Hon’ble Court so that this Hon’ble Court may accordingly deliver justice as per the facts emerging through this subsequent hearing
2.     to make any other order as it deems fit, in the Interest of Justice.


Lucknow                                                  (Amitabh Thakur)(Dr Nutan Thakur)
Dated-  22/03/2014                                                      Petitioner in Person
                                                                                                # 094155-34525


















No comments:

Post a Comment