Complaint at ACB against Competent Rent Authority Vaibhav Puri and Additional Commissioner Kisan N Jawle

 

Mumbai: Complaint has been registered at Anti corruption bureau ie. ACB Mumbai for corruption and misconduct in the office of Competent rent authority, Bandra by Mr Vaibhav Puri and his senior Mr Kisan N Jawle Additional commissioner , IAS as revision authority. As per Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 both officers only have jurisdiction to listen matter of dispute under the definition of premises. The premises word is defined at Maharashtra Municipal act 1888 with section 353 B . The issue is that both the officers are  entertaining cases of unauthorize structure which donot comply premises definitions.  In A Palghar dispute matter the respondent informed that this authority have no jurisdiction to entertain this application as the building is unauthorize and copy of RTI also shared with him. But Mr Vaibhav Puri did not taken this on record and passed order for eviction in favour of petitioner. By showing registration paper the petitioner was claiming flat to be authorize . The Palghar municipal have no record of CC and OC as per RTI reply.

The Competent rent authority is taking matter of unauthorize buildings and passing eviction order against rule of law. As per Bombay High Court order in Prathmesh Tower the civil court should not entertain the cases of unauthorize  buildings . Mr Vaibhav Puri have full knowledge of law then also he is doing corruption in his office to favour petitioners as per complainant . 

The Complainant filed revision application before Additional Commissioner Mr Kisan N Jawle opposite Museum , Mumbai CSMT. He did not listen the revisionist and dismissed the petition in single hearing that you have challenged the eviction order not eviction petition. As per SC order petition should be allowed to be corrected if so. But there is nexus between both the officers to promote illegal building and neglect Bombay High court order . They have no respect of SC and HC rulings . It is a case of criminal misconduct and give advantage to other persons against rule of law. The punishment is of 5 -7 years imprisonment as per PC act 1988. Manish Sisodia is also behind the bar under section 7 and 13 of PC act 1988. Recently Maharashtra ACB issued notice to a SC Judge in corruption case filed by Rashid pathan. Soon CRPC 156 matter will be filed before Corruption court at Session . Accused will not get protection under 17A if it not part of duty to disobey law and Bombay high Court orders which are binding for them. Delhi and Kerla HC defined the protection under section 17 A to public servants in recent cases.

As per SC order the competent authority is not court 

Supreme Court of India

Iqbal Singh Narang & Ors vs Veeran Narang on 30 November, 2011

Bench: Altamas Kabir, Surinder Singh Nijjar

 

 

12. In the decision rendered by this Court in Prakash H. Jain Vs. Marie Fernandes [(2003) 8 SCC 431], this Court held that the Competent Authority  under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, is at best a statutory authority created for a definite purpose and to exercise powers in a quasi-judicial manner, but its powers were strictly circumscribed by the very statutory provisions which conferred upon it those powers and the same could be exercised in the manner provided therefor and subject to such conditions and limitations stipulated by the very provisions of law under which the Competent Authority itself was created.

The aforesaid decisions of this Court establish that though the Rent Controller discharges quasi-judicial functions, he is not a Court, as understood in the conventional sense and he cannot, therefore, make a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Consequently, as held by the High Court, a complaint could be made by a private party in the proceedings.

15. In addition to the above, we also see no reason to quash the proceedings in which the Appellants herein had been summoned under Section 193/420/120-

The Additional commissioner has power to quash the order of competent authority by sumotoo but he dismissed the revision very cleverly and upheld the wrong doings of his junior . As per complainant they are doing crime under section 7 and 13 of PC act 1988 amended .

Bombay High Court

Shrikant Dattatraya Deshpande vs Shalini Waman Bhat And Ors on 13 September, 2019

Bench: D. S. Naidu

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164402542/

82. Under Section 44, the Additional Commissioner of a Revenue Division, may, at any time, suo motto or on the application of any person aggrieved, can exercise its revisional power. It is only for "satisfying itself that an order made in any case by the Competent Authority under section 43 is according to law." To ascertain that the Competent Authority's authority has acted under the law, the Revisional Authority can "call for the record of that case and pass such order in respect thereto as it or he thinks fit."

Question of law is that if the competent authority is not a court then how it can entertain execution petition without jurisdiction? The petitioner should approach civil court for executions  .