Skip to main content

First Citizen Banned By Top Indian Court In History For Money


Mumbai: Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog And Justice Bharti Dangre Bench banned Sapan Shrivastava at Bombay High Court for not paying penalty. In the history first time court banned any person for money. In Past the petitioner raised a illegal education board issue in PIL as per the information received from HRD Ministry. Without taking RTI reply , HRD affidavit and State Of Maharashtra (Reply not filed ) in the order they dismissed the Public Interest Litigation with cost of Rs 5Lac in favour of Education board. Court ordered that if the cost is not paid then he cannot file any petition at Bombay High Court. During hearing the petitioner was asking Chief justice to take RTI reply important lines and HRD affidavit on record but Judges did not admitted petitioner request. Court was also angry from him for asking donations from public by crowd funding. As per court it is act of extortion for raising money from Public for legal expense . The petitioner has raised many issues of Illegal schools, Hospital fire NOC, SEBI IPO regularities, Petrol Pump Opening issue, Insurance Policy approval scam , Illegal charges in policies, Illegal mining etc at Bombay High Court. In Many PILs court has taken action against irregularities but not paid any reward or cost of petition to petitioner Sapan Shrivastava . 
But on 5th Sept 2019 Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog Bench imposed penalty on Petitioner of Rs 5lacs knowing that his income is less than Rs 1lac per annum. Same Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog did not allowed his son admission in vacant RTE 25% seat because father file PILs at Court. Now the High Court Staffs are not accepting any affidavit , applications , motions in earlier filed matter also. Registrar Judicial Shri VR Kachare informed petitioner that he cannot file any thing in earlier matters as per direction from CJ Bench .Petitioner Sapan Shrivastava is unable to follow his old matters in the temple of Justice after the order in Civil PIL 159/2016. Now he cannot approach Bombay High Court for his personal issues also.  Many people warned petitioner for raising corporate corruption and they was knowing that one day such thing will happen. Sapan Shrivastava is filing and arguing matters as party in person . Many party in persons are assisting each others in Bombay high Court. As per CJ order petitioner also can not file review or recall application at Bombay High Court as gates has been closed in the temple of Justice. It is day light violation of Supreme court order of access to Justice . Complaint registered at Supreme court and dairy number has been issued but no update received till date.

Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushap Sudan, ( (2016) 8 SCC 509 ) has held that access of justice is an integral part of the guarantee contained in Article 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law to not only citizens but non-citizens also.

Supreme Court of India
Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust & ... on 12 October, 2011
 The provisions relating to costs should not however obstruct access to courts and justice. Under no circumstances the costs should be a deterrent, to a citizen with a genuine or bonafide claim, or to any person belonging to the weaker sections whose rights have been affected, from approaching the courts.

Common sense – first principle
Menka GandhiVs. Union of India, (1978) article 21 In Maneka Gandhi vs the Union of India (1978 AIR SC 597), the apex court held that the "procedure" under Article 21 had to be fair, just and reasonable, and would have to be also tested with Article 14 (equality) and 19 (the freedoms) thereby ushering in the era of "substantive due process".

Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2010 (6) SLR 1988,
Para 16.  Our Constitution protects not only the life and liberty
but also the dignity of every person. Life convicts and hardcore
criminals deprived of personal liberty are also not wholly denuded of their Constitutional rights. Arbitrariness is an anathema to the principles of reasonableness and fairness enshrined in our constitutional provisions. The rule of law prohibits the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner and/or in a manner that travels beyond the boundaries of reasonableness. Thus, a statutory authority is not permitted to act whimsically/arbitrarily. Its actions should be guided by the principles of reasonableness and fairness. The authority cannot
be permitted to abuse the law or to use it unfairly.

The legal maxim “nemo debet esse judex in propria causa” (no
man shall be a judge in his own cause) is required to be observed by all judicial and quasi-judicial authorities as non-observance thereof is treated as a violation of the principles of natural justice. (Vide Secretary to Government, Transport Department v. Munuswamy Mudaliar & Anr., AIR 1988 SC 2232; Meenglas Tea Estate v.The Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719; and Mineral Development Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Anr., AIR 1960 SC 468).
This Court in A.U. Kureshi v. High Court of Gujarat &
Anr., (2009) 11 SCC 84, placed reliance upon the judgment in Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1985) 4 SCC
417, and held that no person should adjudicate a dispute which he or she has dealt with in any capacity. The failure to observe this principle creates an apprehension of bias on the part of the said
person. Therefore, law requires that a person should not decide a case wherein he is interested. The question is not whether the person is actually biased but whether the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the minds of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision.

Vinod Seth v Devinder Bajaj and another,   2010 (7) SCR 424=2010 (8) SCC 1.

16. This case reminds us of the adage: "Hard cases make bad law". Black's Law Dictionary defines a `hard case' thus : "A law suit involving equities that tempt a judge to stretch or even disregard a principle of law at issue --- hence the expression "Hard cases make bad law". Justice Holmes explained and extended the adage thus : (See his dissenting opinion in Northern Securities Co. v. United States 193 (1903) US 197) :

"Great cases, like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their real importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment. These immediate interests exercise a kind of hydraulic pressure which makes whatpreviously was clear seem doubtful, and before which even well settled principles of law will bend."
This is certainly a hard case. The High Court should have resisted from laying down a `bad law', which will be treated as a precedent and will result in similar directions by courts, wherever they feel that suits are not likely to succeed. It would encourage, in fact even force, the losing party to file an appeal or further appeal against the final decision in the suit. This is because no plaintiff would like to undertake to pay a large sum as damages, nor would a defendant like to miss a chance to receive a large sum as damages. Such orders would also tempt and instigate both the parties to make attempts to succeed in the suit by hook or crook, by adopting means fair or foul. If litigants are to be subjected to such directions in terrorem, the litigant public will be dissuaded from approaching courts, even in regard to bona fide claims. Such orders may lead to gradual loss of faith in the judiciary and force litigants to think of extra-judicial remedies by seeking the help of underworld elements or police to settle/enforce their claims thereby leading to break-down of rule of law. No order or direction of the High Court, even if it is intended to deter vexatious and frivolous litigation, should lead to obstruction of access to courts.

23 (e) The provisions relating to costs should not however obstruct access to courts and justice. Under no circumstances the costs should be a deterrent, to a citizen with a genuine or bonafide claim, or to any person belonging to the weaker sections whose rights have been affected, from approaching the courts.

 Right to access to Courts is now recognized as a basic human right and its origin can be traced to Art. 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed by the United Nations Organisation in 1948 and to Art. 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which India is a party.

People'S Union For Democratic ... vs Union Of India & Others on 18 September, 1982
Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1473, 1983 SCR (1) 456

Public  interest   litigation  which   is
strategic arm  of  the  legal  aid  movement  and  which  is
intended to  bring justice  within the     reach  of  the    poor
masses, who  constitute the low visibility area of humanity,
is a  totally different kind of litigation from the ordinary
traditional litigation  which is essentially of an adversary
character where    there is  a dispute  between two litigating
parties, one  making claim  or seeking     relief against      the
other and  that other  opposing such claim or resisting such
relief. Public    interest litigation  is brought       before      the
court not  for the  purpose of enforcing the  right of   one
individual  against  another  as  happens  in  the  case  of
ordinary litigation,  but it  is  intended  to   promote      and
indicate public    interest which    demands that  violations of
constitutional or legal rights of large number of people who
are  poor,   ignorant  or  in  a  socially  or   economically
disadvantaged  position   should  not     go   unnoticed     and
unredressed. That  would be  destructive of  the Rule of Law
which forms one of the essential elements of public interest
in any democratic form of Government. [467 C-F]
     1:2. The  Rule of Law does not mean that the protection
of the law must be available only to a fortunate few or that
the law      should be  allowed to  be prostituted by the vested
interests for  protecting and upholding the status quo under
the guise  of  enforcement  of their  civil  and  political
rights. The poor too have civil and political rights and the
Rule of      law is      meant for them also, though today it exists
only on      paper and  not in  reality. If the sugar barons and
the alcohol  kings have  the Fundamental  rights to carry on
their business    and to fatten their purses by exploiting the
consuming public, certainly the "chamaras" to belonging
to the      lowest strata  of society  have Fundamental Right to
earn on      honest living    through their  sweat and toil. Large
numbers of  men, women  and children who constitute the bulk
of an  population are  today living a sub human existence in
conditions of  object poverty; utter grinding    poverty      bas
broken their back and sapped their moral fibre. They have no
faith in  the existing  social and  economic system. Nor can
these poor  and deprived  sections  of     humanity  afford  to
enforce their civil and political rights.


Popular posts from this blog

FDA Maharashtra Directory Contact Moblie Number

Food and Drug Administration Directory  DOWNLOAD JUNE 2021 CONTACT LIST PLZ CLICK ADVERTISEMENT TO SUPPORT THIS WEBSITE FOR REVENUE FROM ADVERTISEMENT Field Office Circle Head (Assit Commissioner Address of Field Office Inspector AHMEDNAGAR A.T. RATHOD (7045757882) 19C, Siddhivinayak Colony,,Near Auxillium School, Savedi,,Ahmednagar - 414003 J.H.SHAIKH (9158424524) AKOLA H. Y. METKAR (9730155370) Civil Line, Akashwani Road, ,Akola ,AKOLA H. Y. METKAR (9730155370) AMARAVATI U.B.GHAROTE (9595829895) Office of the Joint Commissioner,Jawade Compound, Near Bus Stand,Amrawati-444 601 C. K. DANGE (9422844477) AURANGABAD S. S. KALE (9987236658) Office of the Joint Commissioner,,2nd floor, Nath Super Market, Aurangpura,Aurangabad R. M. BAJAJ (9422496941) AURANGABAD Zone 2

हिन्दू शब्द वेदों से लिया गया है ना की फ़ारसी से

  HINDU WORD ORIGIN PLZ CLICK ADVERTISEMENT TO SUPPORT THIS WEBSITE FOR REVENUE FROM ADVERTISEMENT हिन्दू शब्द सिंधु से बना है  औऱ यह फारसी शब्द है। परंतु ऐसा कुछ नहीं है! ये केवल झुठ फ़ैलाया जाता है।ये नितांत असत्य है  ........ "हिन्दू"* शब्द की खोज - *"हीनं दुष्यति इति हिन्दूः से हुई है।”* *अर्थात* जो अज्ञानता और हीनता का त्याग करे उसे हिन्दू कहते हैं। 'हिन्दू' शब्द, करोड़ों वर्ष प्राचीन, संस्कृत शब्द से है! यदि संस्कृत के इस शब्द का सन्धि विछेदन करें तो पायेंगे .... *हीन+दू* = हीन भावना + से दूर *अर्थात* जो हीन भावना या दुर्भावना से दूर रहे, मुक्त रहे, वो हिन्दू है ! हमें बार-बार, सदा झूठ ही बतलाया जाता है कि हिन्दू शब्द मुगलों ने हमें दिया, जो *"सिंधु" से "हिन्दू"* हुआ l *हिन्दू शब्द की वेद से ही उत्पत्ति है !* जानिए, कहाँ से आया हिन्दू शब्द, और कैसे हुई इसकी उत्पत्ति ? हमारे "वेदों" और "पुराणों" में *हिन्दू शब्द का उल्लेख* मिलता है। आज हम आपको बता रहे हैं कि हमें हिन्दू शब्द कहाँ से मिला है! "ऋग्वेद" के *"

RTE & School Quota Of Kalyan Dombivli KDMC Region Thane

 Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Region School Quota and RTE 25% quota details received from RTI reply from KDMC Education department. Almost in all the schools free education seats for income below Rs1lac is vacant .The vacant seats are illegally filled by private school in open category by private schools by taking donations. KDMC education didnot taken any action. Total approved strength of class is 4 times of RTE quota. If RTE 25% quota is 25 then approved students limit is 100 students. Means 75 students from general and 25 from RTE 25% quota. In all the schools students are more than from approved strength and RTE 25% seats are vacant. It means RTE seats are filled by general students. As per RTE Act 2009 poor quota seats ie RTE25% cannot be filled by general quota in any condition and at any class. Helpline 9702859636  RTE Admission