Review petition criminal in writ petition criminal no.136 of 2016 before supreme court of india filed on 09.11.2016

FILING INDEX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION CRIMINAL NO. OF 2016
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO. 136 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ………….PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS …………….RESPONDENT
S.N Particulars Copies Court Fees
1. Memo of Appearance 1
2. ID Proof duly signed 1
3. Order under Challenge 1+3
4. Review Petition (Crl.) with
Affidavit
1+3
5. Certificate 1+3
6. Annexures P-1 to P-9 1+3
Petitioner in Person
Filed on: 09.11.2016 Om Prakash
Vide Diary No. 37613 RZF-893, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG
RAJ NAGAR PART-2, PALAM COLONY
NEW DELHI-110077MOB:9968337815
E-mail: om.poddar@gmail.com

REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2016
IN
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 136 OF 2016
Review Petition (Criminal) under Article 137 of the Constitution
of India arising out of the final Order dated 21.10.2016 passed
by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 136 of 2016
with A Prayer for review and reconsideration.
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR …………..PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ….RESPONDENT
PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)
PAGES FROM TO
PETITIONER IN PERSON
OM PRAKASH

INDEX
S.N Particulars Page No.
1. Memo of Appearance ‘A’
2. Synopsis and list of dates B-H
3. Review Petition (Criminal) along with
Affidavit in support.
4. Certificate
5. Annexure: P-1
A True Copy of Letter-Petition
dated 19.08.2016 to Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India by the
Petitioner.
6. Annexure: P-2
A True Copy of RTI reply by Ld. CJM
Begusarai dated 27.08.2016 to the
petitioner
7. Annexure: P-3
A True Copy of application before
the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
for mentioning of fresh matter
urgently dated 03.10.2016 along

with Affidavit by the petitioner
through R&I as well as through
Registry.
8. Annexure: P-4
A True Copy of filing index of
Urgent Mentioning application
before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
India’s Court through Mentioning
Officer dated 06.10.2016 by the
petitioner through Caveat clearance
Counter without receipt.
9. Annexure: P-5
A True Copy of order dated
07.10.2016 passed by this Hon’ble
Court in Writ (Crl.) 136 of 2016.
10. Annexure: P-6
Chief Justice of India by the
petitioner no.02.
11. Annexure: P-7
A True Copy of application for
constitution bench along with

Affidavit dated 18.10.2016 vide
diary no. 77878 filed against Writ
Petition (Criminal) 136 of 2016
12. Annexure: P-8
A True Copy of certified copy of
office report dated 20.10.2016 by
the Registrar, Section X in Writ
(Crl.) 136 of 2016.
13. Annexure: P-9
A True Copy of final Order under
Challenge dated 21.10.2016 passed
by this Hon’ble Court in Writ
Petition (Criminal) 136 of 2016

‘A’
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO. OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR …PETITIONER
VERSUS
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
Sir,
Please enter my appearance Petitioner-in-Person
in the above mentioned matter:
New Delhi
Dated this the day of 2016
Yours faithfully,
(OM PRAKASH )
Petitioner-in-Person

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
The present review petition under Article 137 of
the Constitution of India is being filed to review
and reconsider the final order dated 21.10.2016
passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ
(Criminal) 136 of 2016 by which this Hon’ble
Court has dismissed the petition with liberty
and directed the petitioner to approach Patna
High Court, which would have far reaching
consequences against the interest of public at
large and against the right of Senior Citizen
Woman in particular and would shake the public
confidence by reason of the association or
closeness of judge with the subject matter of
dispute; establish wrong precedent of
procedural Judicial system, encourage
malfunctioning of the State Apparatus; weaken
the basic fabric of the institutions; ignore
constitutional priority; which has caused
gross injustice, violated the principle of
natural justice, ignored the principle of ex
debito justitiae and resulted in miscarriage
of justice.
23.07.2013 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi pronounced
Judgment in MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012 in
favor of petitioner on the ground of

certified copy of Begusarai Court in
case no.9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic
violence Act and after three SLP(C)
no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013,
SLP(C) no. 19073/2013 before this
Hon’ble Court.
19.08.2016 Letter-Petition against Ld. CJM Court
Begusarai affecting the administration
of Justice dated 19.08.2016 vide diary
no. 35529 has been rejected by this
Hon’ble Court as it did not cover
under the guideline of PIL; although
the matter in the larger public
interest.
27.08.2016 Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Public
Information Officer District Court
Begusarai Bihar has furnished false
and frivolous RTI reply dated
27.08.2016 received on 01.09.2016.
30.08.2016 That aggrieved by the false RTI reply
dated 27.08.2016 furnished by the Ld.
CJM Begusarai, petitioner filed Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 on
30.08.2016 before this Hon’ble Court

for quashing of frivolous criminal
proceedings 498A pending before Ld.
CJM division Begusarai since
07.02.2011 without the knowledge of
petitioner and after the settlement of
matter by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi.
03.10.2016 Application before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India for mentioning of
fresh matter urgent listing earlier
than the scheduled date and urgent
relief is sought against Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 has been
submitted through R&I department of
this Hon’ble Court after huge hue and
cry as initially R&I refused to take
this Dak and subsequently filed
through filing counter of Party in
Person as well on the same date.
06.10.2016 That the petitioner applied for
urgent mentioning of the matter
India through Mentioning officer of
this Hon’ble Court on 06.10.2016
without routing through the

registry through Caveat clearance
counter. However, mentioning officer
of this Hon’ble Court has
intentionally listed my urgent
mentioning application before Court
No.06 instead of Hon’ble the chief
Justice of India’s Court in the
evening of 06.10.2016 despite of my
strong protest.
07.10.2016 petitioner submitted before the
Hon’ble bench of Court no.06 that the
mentioning officer has cheated the
petitioner and intentionally listed
the matter for mentioning before this
court. Hence, order dated 07.10.2016
passed by this Hon’ble Court.
08.10.2016 Aggrieved by the intentional act of
mentioning officer the petitioner
no.02 has submitted Letter-Petition
dated 08.10.2016 before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India through email
against rampant atrocities on Senior
Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,
OBC, voiceless, rural woman in two
states viz. Bihar as well as in Delhi

since 12 years to Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India.
13.10.2016 petitioner no.02 has again submitted
Letter-Petition dated 13.10.2016
India through speed post and by hand
against rampant atrocities on Senior
Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,
OBC, voiceless, rural woman in two
states viz. Bihar as well as in Delhi
since 12 years.
17.10.2016 Petitioner being called on 17.10.2016
by the mentioning officer for fresh
application for urgent mentioning
however petitioner being harassed
whole day from PRO to mentioning
officer and directly refused by the
mentioning officer as his role is over
now.
18.10.2016 Upon direct refusal by mentioning
officer to allow the petitioner to
mention the matter before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India as per the
provisions laid down in the handbook

of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and
the schedule listing of the matter
fixed by the registry on 21.10.2016;
the petitioner left with no option and
filed an application for listing this
matter before the constitution bench
of seven Judges vide diary no. 77878
dated 18.10.2016.
20.10.2016 Office-report against Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 has neither been
supplied by Registrar, Section X nor
been uploaded at the website of
Hon’ble Apex Court. Petitioner has
applied for the certified copy of the
same on 28.10.2016 with an application
registration no. A1-32350/2016 vide
diary no. PC-732 and received on
08.11.2016.
21.10.2016 During the course of hearing on
21.10.2016, petitioner being directed
by the Hon’ble bench to engage
Advocate although the petitioner has
clarified in writing the strong reason
for not engaging any Advocate or legal

Aid in the petition as well as during
the interaction interview with the
Registrar. Petitioner has not being
heard properly by the Hon’ble bench
and order has been passed with an
error apparent on the face of the
record against the petitioner
violating the principles of Natural
Justice which has resulted in gross
miscarriage of justice.
09.11.2016 Hence the review Petition.

IN
BETWEEN
1. Om Prakash ………PETITIONER NO.01
S/O Late Sh Deep Narayan Poddar
R/O RZF-893, Netaji Sbhash Marg
Raj Nagar Part-2,
Palam Colony
New Delhi-110077
2. Widow Asha Devi ……PETITIONER NO.02
W/o Late Sh. Deep Narayan Poddar
R/O ASHA DEEP NIWAS
Vill-Kantiya Panchayat,
Shukkar Haat Sonaili,
In front of Durga Mandir
P.S. Kadwa, Distt-Katihar
Bihar-855114
VERSUES

1. State of Bihar ….RESPONDENT No.01
Through Chief Secretary,
Old Secretariat, Patna-800015
2. The Hon’ble Patna ….RESPONDENT No.02
High Court,
Through
Hon’ble Registrar General,
Patna High Court
Patna-800028
3. Ld. CJM Court ….RESPONDENT No.03
Through Ld. CJM
Begusarai, Bihar
Civil Court, Ld. CJM Division
at Begusarai, Bihar
4. The Secretary ….RESPONDENT No.04
Cum-Legal Remembrancer
Law Department, Government of Bihar
Main Secretariat Patna-800015
REVIEW PETITION CRIMINAL UNDER ARTICLE
137 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ON THE
GROUND OF AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE
OF RECORD.

To
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and His
Lordship's Companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of India. The Humble review
petition Criminal of the Petitioner
abovenamed.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. FACTS OF THE CASSE
i. That the present review petition
criminal under Article 137 of the
Constitution of India read with Hon’ble
Supreme Court Rules 1966 on the ground of
an error apparent on the face of record for
review of the final Order dated 21.10.2016
(Criminal) 136 of 2016 by which this
Hon’ble Court has dismissed the petition
with liberty and directed the petitioner to
approach Patna High Court, which would have
far reaching consequences against the
interest of public at large and against the
right of Senior Citizen Woman in particular

and would shake the public confidence by
reason of the association or closeness of
judge with the subject matter of dispute;
establish wrong precedent of procedural
Judicial System, encourage malfunctioning
of the State Apparatus; weaken the basic
fabric of the institutions; ignore
constitutional priority; which has caused
gross injustice to the petitioner, violated
the principle of natural justice, ignored
the principle of ex debito justitiae and
resulted in miscarriage of justice.
ii. That the Constitution of India
assigned a pivotal role on to the Supreme Court
providing therein the supremacy of law with the
rationale being justice is above all. The
exercise of inherent power of this Court also
stands recognized by Order XLVII Rule 6 of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which reads as
below:
“Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to
limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers
of the Court to make such orders as may be

necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court."
iii. That Hon’ble bench has passed the final order
dated 21.10.2016 in Writ Criminal 136 of 2016
without taking into account the face of records
that the matter has already been settled by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013 in
MAT.APPL. NO. 7 of 2012 in favor of petitioner
on the ground of certified copy of Begusarai
Court in case no.9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic
violence Act and after three SLP(C) no.
9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no.
19073/2013 before this Hon’ble Court.
iv. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that the petitioner
has not approached this Hon’ble Court for
dispute settlement but for strong punitive
action against the bad elements of the State
Apparatus in two states who are indulged in
affecting the administration of Justice; which
has resulted in miscarriage of Justice.
Petitioner has elicited data at the cost of his
whole life and placed on record before this
Hon’ble Apex Court for necessary stern legal
action.

v. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
has filed interlocutory application for
Constitution bench on 18.10.2016 vide diary no.
77878 against the Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016. Petitioner did raise ‘substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution and this Hon’ble Court was not
required to decide any ‘interlocutory and
miscellaneous application’ ‘connected with the
petition’. The petitioner’s written submissions
also contain these averments in Writ Petition
page 18, (para g, h) page 19 (para i) and page
26(para I, J and K).
vi. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
has placed on record the bad elements of Legal
Aid Institutions in India and urged to take
punitive action against them to strengthen the
institutions.
vii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that the matter is
full of bloodshed which has been caused by the
bad element of state apparatus those have been

given license to preserve, protect and adhere
the Rule of law. The petitioner’s written
submissions contain these averments in page
27(para L); subsequent clarification by
Registrar dated 07.09.2016 at page 53 (Ans. of
defects of para 08, Ground L); page 27(para N);
subsequent clarification by Registrar dated
07.09.2016 at page 54 (Ans. of defects of para
08, Ground N);
viii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that handicapped
father of the petitioner was encircled to death
by the nexus of Mafia and state Apparatus in
2007 untimely. The flame of the funeral of the
petitioner’s father has not extinguished till
date and still flaming in the mind of the
petitioner.
ix. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that petitioner has
approached this Hon’ble Court to plead to take
strong punitive action against them who want to
establish the hegemony of bad element of state
apparatus and want to govern the mind and body
of the vulnerable common mass.
x. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that the criminal
proceeding has taken place in the state of
Bihar because of dismissal of all SLP(C) no.
9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no.
19073/2013 of the petitioner by this Hon’ble
Court which has encouraged the morale of bad
elements of State Apparatus in Bihar as well as
in Delhi. 498A is the outcome of this
encouragement.
xi. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that Petitioner is a
victim of malfunctioning of two State Apparatus
viz. Delhi as well as Bihar.
xii. That the order dated 21.10.2016 of this Hon’ble
Court has totally ignored the jurisdiction
“ground K” taken at page no. 26 in the petition
and the clarification sought by the Registrar
dated 07.09.2016 at page no. 50 to 57 in the
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016.
xiii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that the cause of
action is the same and the jurisdictions of two
states are involved in it. The first cause of
action arose in the south west district of
Delhi and has been settled by the Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013 on the ground of
certified copy of Ld. District Court, Begusarai
Bihar, in MAT. APPL. No. 7 of 2012. Trial for
the same cause of action cannot be conducted in
the two states by two Hon’ble High Courts at
different point of time after the settlement by
one Hon’ble High Court.
xiv. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
case u/s 498A is not maintainable in the state
of Bihar and is maintainable in the South West
District of Delhi and F.I.R is to be lodged at
Palam Village Police Station, south west
district at New Delhi wherein the client of
Respondent No.04 has last resided till
15.04.2005. However, in this matter the client
of Respondent No.04 has filed a criminal case
complaint u/s 498A in the state of Bihar after
a gap of 6 years on 07.02.2011 without an F.I.R
and without police diary and without the
intimation to the petitioner no.01 and 02 as on
date and after the closure of frivolous Case
No.9P of 2010 u/s domestic violence Act which
was instituted on 30.03.2010 before the same
Ld. CJM division Begusarai.

xv. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
case complaint (P) no. 397C of 2011 new CIS
generated No. 5591 of 2013 has been filed on
07.02.2011 and the client of Respondent no.04
has appeared before Ld. Trial Court at New
Delhi on 09.02.2011 in case no. HMA-700 of
2010 and supplied the copy of case no. 9P of
2010 u/s 12 of domestic violence with N.B.W
issued dated 25.08.2010 and did not supply the
copy of criminal case complaint (P) no. 397C of
2011 new CIS generated No. 5591 of 2013 u/s
498A to the Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi with
criminal intention and managed to get issued
N.B.W dated 08.09.2011, Process u/s 83 Cr.P.C.
(this information disclosed through RTI reply
by Ld. CJM cum PIO dated 27.08.2016) and
continued to take dates up till now without the
Notice/Summon to the petitioner with criminal
intention.
xvi. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
has already filed an application for
cancellation of N.B.W dated 25.08.2010 and
replication of complaint no.9P of 2010 u/s 43
(12) of protection of women from domestic

violence Act, 2005 for setting aside order u/s
18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 through his Ld. Advocate
Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Reg. No.6255 of 1995 on
03.03.2011. It is evident from the record of
all the three SLPs filed before this Hon’ble
Court. However, this record has been erased by
the Ld. CJM division Begusarai which has been
admitted by Ld. CJM through RTI reply dated
27.08.2016.
xvii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that India is an
independent Country and not left with any
Princely State which will be governed by its
own State’s Law. Indian states are quasi-
federal and the matter falls within the
complete jurisdiction of Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India who is competent to look into the
matter of two states jurisdiction. Hence, Writ
Petition is maintainable in view of prayers (i)
and (ii) for quashing the frivolous criminal
proceedings pending before the Ld. CJM division
Begusarai.
xviii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that fraud, corrupt,
criminal and crook respondent can institute

frivolous criminal litigations under the
judicature of all High Courts in India for the
same cause of action and for the same relief
and keep it secret on the file of the court
record against the petitioner no.01 & 02 to
affect the administration of Justice. Hence,
petitioner will be directed to approach all
High Courts with liberty by this Hon’ble Apex
Court.
xix. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account on the face of record that respondent
has made a court as a personal property;
records have been manipulated, distorted and
erased from the court records of district court
Begusarai which has been admitted by Ld. CJM
Begusarai through RTI reply dated 27.08.2016.
xx. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account on the face of record that Ld. CJM has
admitted that no case no. 9P of 2010 u/s 12 of
domestic violence Act is pending before the Ld.
CJM division Begusarai. How 498A can be
instituted after the closure of domestic
violence under the same Ld. CJM division?
xxi. That Hon’ble Court has failed to

take into account on the face of record of RTI
reply by Ld. CJM Begusarai dated 27.08.2016
which has enabled the Hon’ble Court to take
stern punitive action against the
malfunctioning of State Apparatus down the line
to act as a deterrence to strengthen the legal
& Judicial institutions in India.
xxii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to
take into account on the face of record of
voluminous evidence adduced in all the three
SLPs and Writ filed before this Hon’ble Court
that the petitioner no. 01 & 02 cannot sustain
their life either in Delhi or in Bihar without
the Hon’ble Apex Court’s intervention and
strong punitive action against the bad elements
of the State Apparatus which has caused
irreparable damage and loss to the petitioner
no.01 & 02 over the period of 12 years.
xxiii. That the matter involves an incompatible
mixture of Hon’ble Judges & Advocates on the
one hand and a vulnerable common man petitioner
in person on the other hand. This incompatible
mixture cannot board in the same compartment
and travel along with. Hon’ble Judges and

Advocates are almighty, learned person and
equivalent to GOD on this earth while a common
man is a creeping helpless and vulnerable
animal. Hence, the fight between two are
incompatible mixture. However, the Constitution
of India is above, all the individuals and all
responsible individuals are duty bound to
preserve the sanctity and dignity of our holy
Constitution at the cost of their lives.
xxiv. That the petitioner has been dragged into the
court and has been brutally assailed every
moment by these bad elements of State Apparatus
since 2010 to till date. Hon’ble Judges and
Advocates have not left a single opportunity to
harass, mentally and physically torture the
petitioner from Ld. Trial Court to this Hon’ble
Court and made him a lively dead body. During
the course of time between 2010 to till date,
petitioner has been stopped several times to
put forward the facts before the Court; many
times petitioner has been awarded Judgment at
the entry gate of the court before reaching to
the court room by the bad elements of state
apparatus. Rampant atrocities by the bad
elements of State Apparatus have made the

petitioner ill and are undergoing treatment
with AIIMS. Health of the petitioner has been
severely affected due to the brutality
inflicted upon him by the Indian Courts since
2010 to till date. Records have been placed on
record with all the three SLPs and Writ
petition filed before this Hon’ble Court. It is
also placed on record with the clarification
sought by the Registrar dated 07.09.2016 at
page no. 50 to 57 in Writ Criminal 136 of 2016.
xxv. That the case has reached up to this stage
after 12 years through RTI against Ld.
Principal Judge Deepa Sharma of Trial Court at
New Delhi for stopping the whole court
proceedings on 30.05.2011 and generating the
wrong order sheet alleging the petitioner for
requesting for adjournment of the court
proceedings while the date was fixed for WS
filing by the respondent and subsequent RTI
reply dated 30.08.2011; RTI against Hon'ble
Justice Ms Veena Birbal of Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi for adjourning the court proceeding
while the Legal Aid Advocate Jai Bansal was
absent without the intimation to the petitioner
and the petitioner in person was present and

subsequent RTI reply dated 27.08.2012; CIC
decision order dated 25.09.2014 under the title
Om Prakash Poddar Vs Department of Legal
Affairs against Delhi State Legal Services
Authority for not taking any action against
Legal Aid Advocates; Department of Justice
Government of India letter to NALSA dated
13.04.2015; NALSA letter to Supreme Court Legal
Service Committee dated 13.05.2015; NALSA
letter to Delhi High Court Legal Service
Committee dated 13.05.2015; NALSA letter to
Delhi State Legal Service Authority dated
13.05.2015 and RTI against Ld. Shri Chandra
Mohan Jha, CJM, Civil Court Begusarai Bihar of
Ld. CJM Divivsion District Court Begusarai
Bihar and subsequent RTI reply dated
27.08.2016.
xxvi. That no civilized & reasonable person would
tolerate and appreciate this kind of brutality
inflicted by the bad element of State Apparatus
ignoring the Rule of Law.
xxvii. That the State Apparatus of two
States are involved in criminal conspiracy
against petitioner no.01 and 02 to kill the

petitioner no.01 and 02 to usurp their property
in Bihar and the controller of the State
Apparatus, a central Government employee and a
Rtd. Justice of this Hon’ble Court reside at
New Delhi and all directions go from Delhi to
Bihar. All events have taken place in Bihar &
Delhi against the petitioner during 2004 to
2016 at the behest of direction from Delhi.
Hence, approaching to Hon’ble Patna High Court
is meaningless and inefficacious. Records have
been placed with all the three SLPs and two
Writs before this Hon’ble Court. Registry has
notified defects against the original draft of
the petitioner in the Writ (Civil) 90 of 2016
because the name of Rtd Justice of this Hon’ble
Court was mentioned. Hence, petitioner
redrafted it. However, it is evident from the
Letter-Petition dated 08.10.2016 to Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India. Another Letter-Petition
dated 13.10.2016 to Hon’ble the Chief Justice
of India is annexed herein with this petition.
xxviii. That Mr. Praveen Kumar from Indian Defense
Account Service presently as C&MD on deputation
basis with Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd,
Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi has
encircled us in Bihar as well as in Delhi and

kept us captive in house arrest virtually. It
has been placed on record in Writ (Civil) 90 of
2016 before this Hon’ble Court.
xxix. That the bad element of State Apparatus on the
one hand has issued N.B.W process u/s 83 Cr.Pc.
and kept it secret since 2011 to usurp our
property in Bihar and on the other hand Mr.
Praveen Kumar has kept us house arrest in Delhi
to kill us silently.
xxx. How State Apparatus and Mafia are involved in
criminal conspiracy against a vulnerable common
man and senior citizen oxygen dependent
voiceless widow OBC woman in two states viz.
Delhi & Bihar since 2004 has been apprised
before this Hon’ble Court from time to time
through SLP(C) no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no.
9483/2013, SLP(C) no. 19073/2013, Writ (C) 90
of 2016 and Writ Petition (Criminal) 136 of
2016?
xxxi. Since 2004 to 2009, criminal conspiracy through
local leaders and Mafia and since 2010 to till
date, through Indian Courts.

xxxii. Everything has finished. 12 years long criminal
conspiracy has taken away the life of my above
the knee amputee father untimely in 2007 and we
(me and my ailing mother) have been kept
captive and house arrest virtually.
xxxiii. That the criminal trespass has been committed
by Mr. Bihari Lal Bubna, an elected PRI leader
with the consent of S.P. of Katihar. House of
petitioner no.02 has been turned into public
Toilet with the posters which has been placed
on record with Writ (C) 90 of 2016 before this
Hon’ble Court through interlocutory
application. False police enquiry report has
been submitted by the S.P. Katihar to the Chief
Minister Secretariat denying the very fact of
the incident. However, the villagers have sent
us the snaps of public toilet through Watsup
which has been declined by the police enquiry
report.
xxxiv. That Peculiar fact of this matter is that the
Hon’ble Judges and Advocates have played a role
of respondents throughout the case from Trial

Court to High Court either in Delhi or in
Bihar. Actual party has not even filed a single
piece of paper before the Ld. Trial court at
New Delhi. However, actual party has appeared
once on 09.02.2011 and has filed Vakalatnama
before Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi.
xxxv. Had the Hon’ble Judges not played a role of
Respondent the matter would have been disposed
of on 30.05.2011 itself? It is evident from the
records of Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi,
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and SCR of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India. Bad elements of State
Apparatus have turned the settled matter into
complex matter intentionally for their own
vested interest and have contracted the matter
till date to finish the vulnerable petitioner
by way of trapping him into the courts without
harming themselves. Matter is ex parte and
Hon’ble Judges have played a role of
respondent.
xxxvi. That a Letter-Petition against Ld.
CJM Begusarai affecting the administration of
Justice dated 19.08.2016 vide diary no. 35529
has been rejected by this Hon’ble Court as it

did not cover under the guideline of PIL;
although the matter in the larger public
interest. The bugs would have been stopped and
killed; had this Hon’ble court would have taken
an appropriate action against the Letter-
Petition dated 19.08.2016.
A True Copy of Letter-Petition dated
19.08.2016 to Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure P-1 (Page
from 68 to 77)
xxxvii. That Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Public
Information Officer District Court Begusarai
Bihar has furnished false and frivolous RTI
reply on 27.08.2016.
A True Copy of false RTI reply by Ld.
CJM Begusarai dated 27.08.2016 to the
petitioner is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-2 (Page from 78
to 84)
xxxviii. That the RTI reply of Ld. Chief Judicial
Magistrate Cum Public Information Officer
District Court Begusarai Bihar under QUESTION
NO.07 in Case No. 9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic

violence Act, "the application for cancellation
of NBW was never pressed before court, so no
order was passed upon it and neither the
petitioner nor his advocate had appeared before
the court" has been falsified by the record of
certified copy of Order dated 4.4.2011 issued
by the same Begusarai Court and the same has
been placed on record at Ld. Trail Court at New
Delhi in Case No. HMA-700 of 2010 and on the
ground of which Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has
pronounced the Judgement in Case No. MAT. APPL.
7 of 2012 on 23.07.2013 in favor of the
petitioner.
xxxix. That aggrieved by the false RTI
reply dated 27.08.2016 furnished by the Ld. CJM
Begusarai, petitioner has filed Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 on 30.08.2016 before this
Hon’ble Court for quashing of frivolous
criminal proceedings.
xl. Application dated 03.10.2016
before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for
mentioning of fresh matter for urgent listing
earlier than the scheduled date and urgent
relief is sought against Writ Petition Criminal

136 of 2016 has been sent through R&I
department of this Hon’ble Court after a huge
hue and cry as initially R&I refused to take
this Dak and subsequently being filed through
filing counter of Party in Person as well on
the same date.
A True Copy of application before the
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for
mentioning of fresh matter urgently
dated 03.10.2016 by the petitioner is
annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-3 (Page from 85 to 95)
xli. That the petitioner applied for
urgent mentioning of the matter Writ
Criminal 136 of 2016 before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India through Mentioning
officer of this Hon’ble Court on 06.10.2016
without routing through the registry
through caveat clearance counter on the
following grounds viz. Senior Citizen
woman, harassment of OBC woman, prevention
of corruption, issuance of N.B.W dated
08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. without
the knowledge of petitioner and after the
settlement of the same matter by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013

in MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012, apprehension of
demolition of property, interlinkages of
matter with old matter of this Hon’ble
Court and short matter, as has been laid
down in the handbook of this Hon’ble Court.
A True Copy of filing index of
Urgent Mentioning application
India’s Court through Mentioning
Officer dated 06.10.2016 by the
petitioner through Caveat clearance
Counter without receipt is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-4
(Page from 96 to 96)
xlii. That the Mentioning officer of
this Hon’ble Court has intentionally listed
my urgent mentioning application before
Court No.06 instead of Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India’s Court in the evening of
06.10.2016 despite of my strong protest to
directly allow me for mentioning before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India as per
the provisions laid down in the handbook of
this Hon’ble Court.

xliii. Hence, the petitioner is aggrieved by
the intentional act of Mentioning officer for
listing the matter before the Court No.06 as
the same Hon’ble bench of this Court No.06 has
dismissed the Writ (C) 90 of 2016, although the
petitioner had apprised the Hon’ble Court
through interlocutory applications that 498A
has been instituted in the state of Bihar even
after the settlement of the same matter by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
xliv. That the petitioner submitted before
the Hon’ble bench of Court no.06 that the
mentioning officer has cheated the petitioner
and intentionally listed the matter for
mentioning before this court. Petitioner has
humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court No.06
to grant him liberty to mention the matter
before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India’s
Court. Hence, order dated 07.10.2016 has been
passed by the Hon’ble Court No. 06 in Writ
(Crl.) 136 of 2016.
A True Copy of order dated
Court is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P-5 (Page from
97 to 97)
xlv. That aggrieved by the intentional act
of Mentioning officer, the petitioner no.02 has
submitted Letter-Petition dated 08.10.2016 and
13.10.2016 before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
India through email; speed post; and by hand
respectively against rampant atrocities on
Senior Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,
OBC, voiceless, rural woman in two states viz.
Bihar as well as in Delhi since 12 years.
Chief Justice of India is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-6
(Page from 98 to 115)
xlvi. After an Order dated 07.10.2016
passed by this Hon’ble Court and upon the
request made by the petitioner, petitioner
being called on 17.10.2016 by the mentioning
officer for fresh application for urgent
mentioning before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
India, however petitioner being harassed whole
day from PRO to mentioning officer and directly

refused by the mentioning officer as his role
is over now.
xlvii. Upon direct refusal by mentioning
officer to allow the petitioner to mention the
matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
India as per the provisions laid down in the
handbook of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and
the schedule listing of the matter fixed by the
registry on 21.10.2016; the petitioner left
with no option and filed an application for
listing this matter before the constitution
bench of seven Judges vide diary no. 77878
dated 18.10.2016.
A True Copy of application for
constitution bench along with
Affidavit dated 18.10.2016 vide
diary no. 77878 filed against Writ
Petition (Criminal) 136 of 2016 is
Annexure P-7 (Page from 116 to
127)
xlviii. Office report dated 20.10.2016 against Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 has neither been
supplied nor been uploaded at the website of

this Hon’ble Court by the Registrar, Section X.
Petitioner has applied for the certified copy
of the same on 28.10.2016 with an application
registration no. A1-32350/2016 vide diary no.
PC-732 and received the certified copy of
Office-Report on 08.11.2016. Office-Report
dated 20.10.2016 does not contain the
application dated 03.10.2016 before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India for mentioning of fresh
matter urgent listing earlier than the
scheduled date and urgent relief is sought
against Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016. The
record has not been placed on record and has
been intentionally erased from the office
report. Office-Report dated 20.10.2016 further
wrongly records the date of filing of
application for listing the writ petition
before a constitution bench on 18th
January
2016 while the petitioner has filed the same on
18th
October 2016. Moreover, it is circulated
‘unregistered’. Criminal Misc petition no. has
not been allotted against application dated
18.10.2016 intentionally by the Registrar.
A True Copy of certified copy of
office report dated 20.10.2016
by the Registrar, Section X is

Annexure P-8 (Page from 128 to
129)
xlix. That this Hon’ble Court has
dismissed the Writ petition with liberty on
21.10.2016 and directed the petitioner to
approach Patna High Court.
A True Copy of final Order dated
Court in Writ Petition (Criminal)
136 of 2016 is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure P-9 (Page
from 130 to 130)
l. That petitioner no.01 and 02
cannot remain live or sustain their life in any
state of India if the Hon’ble Apex Court does
not invoke its inherent power under Article 32
of the Constitution of India to enforce
guaranteed fundamental rights of the petitioner
under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
2. ERRORS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF
RECORD; FACTUAL ERRORS

a. That the Order dated 21.10.2016 of
this Hon’ble Court violates the Part IV of
ORDER XXXV of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 which
was framed in exercise of the powers conferred
by Article 145 of the Constitution. Provision
of the Part IV of Order XXXV of Supreme Court
Rules, 1966 says, “1.(1) Every petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution shall be in
writing and shall be heard by a Division Court
of not less than five Judges provided that a
petition which does not raise a substantial
question of Law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution may be heard and decided by a
Division Court of less than five Judges, and,
during vacation, by the vacation Judge sitting
singly. (2) All interlocutory and miscellaneous
applications connected with a petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution, may be heard
and decided by a Division Court of less than
five Judges, and, during vacation, by the
vacation Judge sitting singly, notwithstanding
that in the petition a substantial question of
Law as to the interpretation of Constitution is
raised.”
b. That the Writ Petition which has
been dismissed by the Order, against which
Review Petition is hereby moved, did raise

‘substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution and this
Hon’ble Court was not required to decide any
‘interlocutory and miscellaneous application’
‘connected with the petition’. The humble
Petitioner had submitted this in his Writ
Petition, pleadings/arguments and through
written submission followed by interlocutory
application for constitution bench on
18.10.2016 vide diary no. 77878.
c. That During the course of hearing
on 21.10.2016, the petitioner not being heard
properly rather directed to engage Advocate
although the Petitioner has clarified the
strong reason for not engaging any Advocate
against this matter in writing in the Writ
petition as well as with the Registrar during
the interaction interview dated 03.10.2016 that
“Hon’ble Judges and Advocates have played a
role of Respondent throughout the case from
Trial Court to High Court”.
d. For that there is sufficient
reason to review the Order of this Hon’ble
Court as it contains material and apparent
errors in passing directions to the petitioner

to approach Patna High Court.
e. For that the Order of this Hon’ble
Court incorrectly directs the petitioner to
approach Patna High Court, which has resulted
in gross miscarriage of justice.
3. FAILURE TO CONSIDER CONTENTIONS OF
PETITIONER MADE WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION; RIGHT OF DIGNITY, LIBERTY AND
AUTONOMY
a) For that Article 21 of the
Constitution protects an individual’s right
to autonomy, liberty, basing this submission
on the jurisprudence of this Hon’ble Court.
The petitioner’s written submissions contain
these averments in pages 15 to 17(para xxvii
to xxix); page 27, (para L, M, N); Page 31,
(para W, X); page 32, (para Y) and page 34
(para BB) and Pages 50 to 57 where
clarification has been sought by the
registrar dated 07.09.2016.
4. ON THE LEGALITY OF THIS ORDER OF D
ISMISSAL: ARTICLE 145 (1).

That the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 was framed in
exercise of the powers conferred by Article 145 of
the Constitution. Part IV, ORDER XXXV of the said
Rules runs as under:
“1.(1) Every petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution shall be in writing and shall be heard
by a Division Court of not less than five Judges
provided that a petition which does not raise a
substantial question of Law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution may be heard and
decided by a Division Court of less than five
Judges, and, during vacation, by the vacation Judge
sitting singly.
(2) All interlocutory and miscellaneous
applications connected with a petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution, may be heard and
decided by a Division Court of less than five
Judges, and, during vacation, by the vacation Judge
sitting singly, notwithstanding that in the
petition a substantial question of Law as to the
interpretation of Constitution is raised.”
The effect of the aforesaid Order is:

(a) That Writ petition involves
questions pertaining to the interpretation
of the Constitution, the Writ Petition must
be heard by a bench of not less than five
Judges;
(b) That if Writ Petition ‘does not
raise a substantial question of Law as to
the interpretation of the Constitution’ it
‘may be heard and decided by a Division
Bench of the Court of less than five
Judges, and, during vacation, by the
vacation Judge sitting singly’;
(c) That all ‘interlocutory and
miscellaneous applications’ connected with
a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution, may be heard and decided by a
Division Court of less than five
Judges,……’; and
(d) That all that can be decided in
matters mentioned at interlocutory and
miscellaneous application’, leaving the
actual Writ Petition intact before the

Court to be disposed of as per the law and
the Constitution.
That the Writ Petition which has been dismissed
by the Order, against which Review Petition is
hereby moved, did raise ‘substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
and this Hon’ble Court was not required to decide
any ‘interlocutory and miscellaneous application’
‘connected with the petition’.
5. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF
THE CONSTITUTION WERE INVOLVED
I. Article 32 confers a guaranteed
fundamental remedy but Article 226 confers no
such guaranteed rights. This state of affairs
makes Article 32 a dominant and specific
provision whereas Article 136 or Article 226
are, in the context of the enforcement of the
fundamental rights, clearly general and
additional.

II. Dr. Ambedkar described Article 32
of the Constitution as “the very soul and the
very heart of the Constitution”. Article 136, a
discretionary remedy, cannot be elevated to
become the very soul of the Constitution.
III. In a given case where certain
Fundamental Rights are violated or non-
protected, a remedy under Article 32 must be
granted as a matter of course;
IV. Remedy under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India is a matter of course
whenever on account of state action a
Fundamental Right granted as per provisions of
the Part III of the Constitution are breached,
or ignored.
V. That, as such, the Remedy under
Article 32 of the Constitution is ex propio
Vigore available to protect a citizen’s
Fundamental Right which he believes to have
been breached or non-protected by a judicial
order of the Superior Judiciary;

VI. That the order stood in breach of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to say
in other words, this Right was not protected by
this Hon’ble Court.
VII. As a point of our Constitutional
law that if there is breach or non-protection
by any organ of the state, which includes
Judiciary also, remedy under Article 32 is to
be granted as a matter of course; and
VIII. To examine the petitioner’s
contentions to appreciate if the Case presented
deserves the grant of such a Remedy on its
merits.
6. QUETION(S) OF LAW
That the main questions of Law to be decided in
this petition are:-
a) Whether after the settlement of the matter
by one High Court; one has to approach
another High Court for the same cause of

action and for the same relief wherein the
respondent has already appeared into the
matter and contested the matter indirectly?
b)Whether the matter involves two states
jurisdictions for the same cause of action;
Hon’ble Apex Court must not invoke its
inherent power under Article 32 to enforce
and guarantee the fundamental rights of the
citizen under Article 21?
c)Whether the Writ petition involves questions
pertaining to the interpretation of the
Constitution; the Writ Petition is liable to
be dismissed by a bench of less than five
Judges?
d)Whether the petitioner approached to this
Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 32 against
rampant atrocities by the state apparatus in
two states and for enforcement of his
fundamental rights under Article 21 to be
subjected to violation of principle of
Natural Justice by this Hon’ble Court?

e)Whether dismissing the Writ petition with
liberty and directing the petitioner to
approach to Patna High Court by the two
Judges Bench of this Hon’ble Court; does not
violate the provisions of Supreme Court
Rules, 1966 which was framed in exercise of
the powers conferred by Article 145 of the
Constitution under the Part IV of ORDER
XXXV? And whether Article 226 confers
guaranteed fundamental rights to the
petitioner for enforcement of Article 21?
7. GROUNDS
That being aggrieved by order dated
21.10.2016, the petitioner is challenging
the same on the following amongst other
grounds: -
A. For that it would be equitable and
in the interest of justice that the
Order dated 21.10.2016, under review in
this petition, is recalled and the case
is decided on merits otherwise grave
prejudice shall be caused to the review
petitioner herein.
B. For that the order violates the

provisions of Supreme Court Rules, 1966
which was framed in exercise of the
powers conferred by Article 145 of the
Constitution under ORDER XXXV.
C. For that the order fails to take
into account the face of records that Writ
petition involves questions pertaining to
the interpretation of the Constitution, the
Writ Petition is not liable to be dismissed
by a bench of less than five Judges?
D. For that the order fails to take
into account the face of records that it
has severely affected the administration of
Justice delivered by the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi; way back in 2013 in favor of
petitioner.
E. For that the order fails to take
into account the face of records that there
is a sheer violation of Principle of
Natural Justice.
F. For that the order fails to take

into account voluminous evidence adduced
and substantive contentions urged by the
petitioner through SLP(C) no. 9854/2012,
SLP(C) no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no.
19073/2013, Writ (C) 90 of 2016 and Writ
(Crl.) 136 of 2016 before this Hon’ble
Court.
G. That the final order of this
Hon’ble Court suffers from errors
apparent on the face of record,
resulting in grave miscarriage of
Justice.
H. Public Confidence in
administration of justice will be shaken
by reason of the association or
closeness of judge with the subject
matter of dispute; establish wrong
precedent of procedural Judicial
System, encourage malfunctioning of
the State Apparatus; weaken the
basic fabric of the institutions;
ignore constitutional priority; if
the order is permitted to stand
I. For that review of this Order is

‘necessary for the sake of justice’.
J. For that review of this Order is
necessary to protect the interest of the
neglected Senior Citizen in the family.
K. For that the order fails to take
into account the face of records that if
Order is not being reviewed in
constructive manner than common man will
be discouraged and demotivated to save
the life of an old age person and aged
person will be neglected in the every
household. No one would try to save the
life of an aged person at the cost of
his or her life in the fast moving
material world.
L. For that review of this Order is
necessary to preserve the dignity of our
holy Constitution as well as the dignity
of our Hon’ble Apex Court.
M. For that review of this Order is
necessary otherwise it will pass a wrong
message to the society that Hon’ble Apex
Court is in support of the

malfunctioning of State Apparatus and
against the protection of Fundamental
Rights of a common citizen.
N. For that the order fails to take
into account the face of records that
there is a sheer violation of Human
Rights throughout the case from Ld.
Trial Court to the Hon’ble Apex Court.
O. For that review of this Order is
necessary otherwise it will pass wrong
message to the petitioner that all
events have taken place against him
(since 2010 to till date, either in
Bihar or in Delhi) so far at the behest
of Hon’ble Apex Court.
P. For that review of this Order is
necessary otherwise individual priority
will overshadow the Constitutional
priority.
Q. For that review of this Order is
necessary otherwise it will encourage
the morale of bad elements of state

Apparatus and weaken the basic fabric of
the institutions.
R. For that review of this Order is
the morale of those who consider court
as their personal property.
S. That the matter is not an
individual as it is in the interest of
larger Public. Thus, power elite can
infringe the right to life or personal
liberty of a vulnerable common man or
woman and take them on hostage to make
them a bonded labour; can infringe the
right to live with dignity.
T. That the matter is a
constitutional as well. It is the
concern of all citizens. Thus, after
winning from one High Court one cannot
go to another High Court for the same
cause of action and for the same relief.

U. That the matter is also concern in
the interest of all Senior Citizen
Women.
V. For that review of this Order is
necessary otherwise it will weaken the
institution of marriage and encourage
the morale of those who are indulged in
the commercialization of marriage for
the lust of property and financial
gains.
W. For that review of this Order is
the rampant misuse of 498A in the
country.
X. For that review of this Order is
necessary otherwise it will not act as a
deterrent and make the women responsible
and accountable towards the Senior
Citizen disabled and ailing in-laws.

Y. For that review of this Order is
necessary to give right direction to the
feminist movement in India.
Z. For that review of this Order is
necessary to redefine the role of Women
Protection Officers in India down the
line.
AA. For that review of this Order is
necessary to fix responsibility,
accountability and stern punitive action
against Women Protection Officer so that
the genuine victims get the benefit out
of it.
BB. For that review of this Order is
necessary to stop the rampant misuse and
abuse of power by the Women Protection
Officers for their own vested interest
defeating the very purpose of the
institutional arrangements made under
the domestic violence Act 2005 for women
safety and empowerment those genuinely
victimized in the society.

CC. For that review of this Order is
necessary to give guidelines to the
State Governments for appointment of the
qualitative & right candidates as Women
Protection Officers in the State.
DD. For that review of this Order is
necessary to impart essential training
and build capacity of the Women
Protection Officers to develop a sense
of discrimination between genuine and
frivolous domestic violence to exercise
their power carefully and diligently to
ascertain the gravity of the affected
Women.
EE. For that review of this Order is
necessary to break the hegemony of bad
elements of state Apparatus who want to
govern the mind and body of a common man
or woman.
FF. For that the order fails to take
into account the face of records that
petitioner’s life is at stake and this

order will kill the petitioner no.01 and
02 slowly and silently.
8. NEW AND IMPORTANT EVIDENCE AS GROUND
(i) For that this Order ought to be
reviewed as it fails to take into account new
and important evidence as ground.
(ii) That the petitioner has been
stopped and offended by the Registry,
Mentioning Officer and PRO by this Hon’ble
Court to mention the matter before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India on the ground of
provisions laid down in the handbook of this
Hon’ble Court. It is evident from an
application before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
India for mentioning of fresh matter urgently
dated 3.10.2016 through R&I and Registry both
and subsequent suppression of the record by the
Registrar Section X as evident from certified
copy of Office-Report dated 20.10.2016 annexed
herein as annexure P-8; an application for
urgent mentioning of the matter before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India through
Mentioning officer of this Hon’ble Court
dated 06.10.2016 without routing through

the registry as per the provisions laid
down in the handbook of this Hon’ble Court
and subsequent listing of matter before
Court no.06 instead of Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India’s Court on 07.10.2016
despite of strong protest by the
petitioner; order dated 07.10.2016 passed
by this Hon’ble Court that though the
matter has been placed before the court as
mentioning item, the petitioner submitted
that he would like to mention the matter
before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India;
Letter-Petition dated 08.10.2016 against
mentioning officer of this Hon’ble Court
through R&I; Letter-Petition dated
13.10.2016 against rampant atrocities on
Senior Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,
OBC, voiceless, rural woman through R&I; after
an order dated 07.10.2016 passed by this
Hon’ble Court and upon request by the
petitioner, petitioner being called on
17.10.2016 for fresh mentioning of the matter
urgently before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
India by the mentioning officer and being
harassed whole day from PRO to mentioning
officer and directly being refused by the
mentioning officer at the end of the day that

his role is over now; consequently, an
application was moved for listing this matter
before the constitution bench of seven Judges
vide diary no. 77878 dated 18.10.2016; office
report dated 20.10.2016 neither being uploaded
at the website in public domain nor being
supplied to the petitioner even after several
reminders orally and through email dated
27.10.2016 to the Registrar, Section X;
application for the certified copy of the same
was made on 28.10.2016 with an application
registration no. A1-32350/2016 vide diary no.
PC-732 and received the certified copy of same
on 08.11.2016 annexed herein as Annexure P-8;
all evidences have been placed on record
with this Criminal Review Petition and are
annexed herein as Annexures P-3 to P-4 and P-
6 to P-8.
(iii) That the petitioner who approached
this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India for enforcement of his
guaranteed Fundamental Right being subjected to
gross violation of Human Rights; and gross
violation of provisions, procedure and practice
of this Hon’ble Court as laid down in the
handbook of this Hon’ble Court by the Quasi-

Judicial Officer of this Hon’ble Court.
(iv) That a well-designed criminal
conspiracy being commissioned and strategy
being adopted against the petitioner by the
Quasi-Judicial Officer of this Hon’ble Court to
spoil the valid ground of the case and make it
liable to be dismissal with liberty by this
Hon’ble Court and to close the door of the
Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 32 for
enforcement of guaranteed fundamental right of
the petitioner under Article 21.
9. QUANTUM OF AFFECTED PERSON AS GROUND FOR
UPHOLDING CONSTITUTIONALITY
a. For that this Hon’ble Court has
held in the case of RK Dalmia vs Justice SR
Tendolkar [AIR 1958 SC 538](noted by this
Hon’ble Court in the impugned judgment) that:
“….a law may be constitutional even though
it relates to a single individual if, on
account of some special circumstances or
reasons applicable to him and not
applicable to others, that single

individual may be treated as a class by
himself”
b. The aforementioned principle has
inter alia been followed by a bench of this
Hon’ble Court in Ashok Thakur vs Union of India
[2008)6 SCC 1], wherein the court held that
even when it notices that “…..even one
individual’s freedom has been curtailed, this
court is duty-bound to entertain his or her
claim.” However, the order dated 21.10.2016 of
this Hon’ble Court has failed to apply this
principle to the Petitioner no.01 & 02 affected
by the malfunctioning of the state apparatus
down the line.
10. That the justice delivery system
of the country is such that in spite of
noticing a breach of public interest with a
corresponding social ramification, court
maintains delightful silence. However, this
Hon’ble Court has never maintained a
delightful silence with a blind eye and deaf
ear to the cry of a society in general or even
that of a litigant on the ground of finality
of an Order as passed by this Hon’ble Court.

11. That the Order dated 21.10.2016 of
this Hon’ble Court implies a closed door of
this Hon’ble Court for the petitioner and
depicts that the same stands in violation of
natural justice adversely and seriously
affecting the rights of the petitioner or the
same depicts manifest injustice rendering the
order a mockery of justice which causes
insurmountable difficulty and immense public
injury. Hence, the principle of concept of
justice, ex debito justitiae may play a
pivotal role in reviewing the order of the
present review petition.
12. The present review petition is
being filed to avoid grave miscarriage of
justice to millions of Senior Citizen Women in-
Laws who have been victimized and aggrieved by
the order dated 21.10.2016 of this Hon’ble
Court and have been put on risk of rampant
atrocities by the malfunctioning of State
Apparatus after the closure of the matter by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, upon rampant
misuse of 498A across India.
13. That the applicant has a good
prima facie case of review against the Order

dated 21.10.2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court
in Writ Criminal 136 of 2016.
14. That it is submitted that the
present petition is being filed bona fide and
in the interest of justice.
15. That the petitioner has filed
first review petition before this Hon’ble Court
and not filed any other review petition in this
matter in any other court.
16. Hence, it is prayed that the
present Review Petition be allowed.
-:PRAYER:-
In the above premises, it is prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
(i) To pass an order allowing the
present review petition seeking
review of the Order dated 21.10.2016
Criminal 136 of 2016 for review and
reconsideration of final order dated
21.10.2016 of this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) To pass such other orders and
further orders as may be deemed
necessary on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER
SHALL AS INDUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
DRAWN & FILED BY:
OM PRAKASH
NEW DELHI:
FILED ON :09.11.2016.
Settled by: Petitioner

IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO.136 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ……….PETITIONER
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Om Prakash S/o Late Deep Narayan Poddar, aged 42
years, R/o RZF/893, Netaji Subash Marg, Raj Nagar
Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi - 77, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:-
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above matter
and well conversant with the facts of the case
as such competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the contents of the accompanying Criminal
Review Petition [para 1 to 16.], [Page 01 to
54] and Synopsis and List of Dates (Page B to
H’], and I, As. having understood the contents

thereof I say that the facts state therein are
correct which are based on the official record.
3. That the Criminal Review Petition Paper Book
contains total 130 pages.’
4. That the annexures are true copies of their
respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify that
the facts stated in the above affidavit are true to
my knowledge and belief. No part of the same is
false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this the 9th
day of
November, 2016.
DEPONENT

IN
(Decided on 21.10.2016)
[Arising out of the final Order dated 21.10.2016
passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 136 of 2016 therein.]
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ……….PETITIONER
VERSUS
BETWEEN
3. Om Prakash ………PETITIONER NO.01
S/O Late Sh Deep Narayan Poddar
R/O RZF-893, Netaji Sbhash Marg
Raj Nagar Part-2,
Palam Colony
New Delhi-110077
4. Widow Asha Devi ……PETITIONER NO.02

W/o Late Sh. Deep Narayan Poddar
R/O ASHA DEEP NIWAS
Vill-Kantiya Panchayat,
Shukkar Haat Sonaili,
In front of Durga Mandir
P.S. Kadwa, Distt-Katihar
Bihar-855114
VERSUES
5. State of Bihar ….RESPONDENT No.01
Through Chief Secretary,
Old Secretariat, Patna-800015
6. The Hon’ble Patna ….RESPONDENT No.02
High Court,
Through
Hon’ble Registrar General,
Patna High Court
Patna-800028
7. Ld. CJM Court ….RESPONDENT No.03
Through Ld. CJM
Begusarai, Bihar
Civil Court, Ld. CJM Division
at Begusarai, Bihar
8. The Secretary ….RESPONDENT No.04
Cum-Legal Remembrancer

Law Department, Government of Bihar
Main Secretariat Patna-800015
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON’S CERTIFICATE
1. That First time, petitioner in person
is filing the present Review Petition
Criminal on the ground of an error apparent
on the face of record under Article 137 of
the Constitution of India, 1950, as per the
rules made under Article 145 under the
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 against the final
Order dated 21.10.2016 passed by this
Hon’ble Court.
2. That having gone through the Order and
records mentioned hereinabove as also the
law laid down as per the rules made under
Article 145 by this Hon’ble Court under the
Supreme Court Rules, 1966, I Certify that:-
A. That the petitioner in person is
filing first Review Petition Criminal
before this Hon’ble Court by
circulation. However, the present
Review Petition seeks to review and
reconsider gross miscarriage of

Justice as is obvious from the
grounds set out in the present Review
Petition Criminal against the Order
dated 21.10.2016 whereby the Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 has
been dismissed with liberty
directing the petitioner to approach
Patna High Court.
B.That the Order dated 21.10.2016 of this
Hon’ble Court violates the Part IV of
ORDER XXXV of Supreme Court Rules, 1966
which was framed in exercise of the
powers conferred by Article 145 of the
Constitution. Provision of the Part IV
of Order XXXV of Supreme Court Rules,
1966 says, “1.(1) Every petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution shall be
in writing and shall be heard by a
Division Court of not less than five
Judges provided that a petition which
does not raise a substantial question of
Law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution may be heard and decided by
a Division Court of less than five
Judges, and, during vacation, by the
vacation Judge sitting singly. (2) All

interlocutory and miscellaneous
applications connected with a petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution,
may be heard and decided by a Division
Court of less than five Judges, and,
during vacation, by the vacation Judge
sitting singly, notwithstanding that in
the petition a substantial question of
Law as to the interpretation of
Constitution is raised.”
C. That it is averred in para no. 1 to
7 of the Review Petition Criminal
that ‘two States jurisdiction for the
same cause of action and
interpretation of the Constitution’
grounds have been taken in the Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 which
has been incorrectly dismissed by the
two Judges bench of this Hon’ble
Court. I certify that these averments
to be correct. I also find from the
contents of the Review Petition that
it fulfills the requirement of
Article 137 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 and the law laid down as
per the rules made under Article 145

by this Hon’ble Court under the
Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
D. That it is averred in para no. 8 of
the Review Petition Criminal that new
and important grounds have been taken
and corresponding evidences have been
placed on record. I certify that these
averments to be correct. I also find
from the contents of the Review
Petition that it fulfills the
requirement of review and reconsider
the final order dated 21.10.2016.
E.That from the perusal of Order and
the records I find that the petitioner
has not been heard properly and Order
being passed hastily which contains
material and apparent errors in passing
directions to the petitioner to approach
Patna High Court.
F.That the Petitioner had raised
‘substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution and
this Hon’ble Court was not required to
decide any ‘interlocutory and

miscellaneous application’ ‘connected
with the petition’. The humble
Petitioner had submitted this in his
Writ Petition, pleadings/arguments and
through written submission followed by
interlocutory application for
constitution bench on 18.10.2016 vide
diary no. 77878.
G. That the Writ Petition which has
been dismissed by the Order, against
which Review Petition is hereby moved,
did raise ‘substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the
Constitution and this Hon’ble Court was
not required to decide any
‘interlocutory and miscellaneous
application’ ‘connected with the
petition’.
H. That Article 21 of the
Constitution protects an individual’s
right to autonomy, liberty, basing this
submission on the jurisprudence of this
Hon’ble Court. The petitioner’s written
submissions contain these averments in

pages 15 to 17(para xxvii to xxix); page
27, (para L, M, N); Page 31, (para W,
X); page 32, (para Y) and page 34(para
BB) and pages 50 to 57 where
clarification has been sought by the
registrar dated 07.09.2016.
I. That petitioner no.01 and 02
cannot remain live or sustain their life
in any state of India if the Hon’ble
Apex Court does not invoke its inherent
power under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India to enforce
fundamental rights of the petitioner
under Article 21 of Constitution of
India.
J.That the direction mentioned in the body
of the order dated 21.10.2016 shows that
the clauses of prayers mentioned in the
Writ Criminal 136 of 2016 have not been
taken care of; and this Hon’ble Court
incorrectly directs the petitioner to
approach Patna High Court, which has
resulted in gross miscarriage of
justice.

K. Article 32 confers a guaranteed
fundamental remedy but Article 226
confers no such guaranteed rights. This
state of affairs makes Article 32 a
dominant and specific provision whereas
Article 136 or Article 226 are, in the
context of the enforcement of the
fundamental rights, clearly general and
additional.
L. That the order stood in breach of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
to say in other words, this Right was
not protected by this Hon’ble Court.
M.That as a point of our Constitutional
law that if there is breach or non-
protection by any organ of the state,
which includes Judiciary also, remedy
under Article 32 is to be granted as a
matter of course; and to examine the
petitioner’s contentions to appreciate
if the Case presented deserves the grant
of such a Remedy on its merits.
N. That there is sufficient reason to
review the Order of this Hon’ble Court
as it contains material and apparent

errors in passing directions to the
petitioner to approach Patna High Court.
O.That the Order of this Hon’ble Court
incorrectly directs the petitioner to
approach Patna High Court, which has
resulted in gross miscarriage of
justice.
P.That the petitioner has approached this
Hon’ble Court against the malfunctioning
of State Apparatus affecting the
administration of justice after the
settlement of the matter by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi and against the
gross violation of Human Rights
throughout the case by the bad elements
of state Apparatus in two States.
Q.That the petitioner who approached this
Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India for enforcement of
his guaranteed Fundamental Right being
subjected to gross violation of Human
Rights; and gross violation of
provisions, procedure and practice of

this Hon’ble Court as laid down in the
handbook of this Hon’ble Court by the
Quasi-Judicial Officer of this Hon’ble
Court. The evidences have been placed on
record with this Review petition and are
annexed herein as Annexure P-3 to P-4
and Annexure P-6 to P-8.
R.That in the above backdrop, a gross
miscarriage of justice including the
violation of principle of natural
justice has taken place in this case.
S.That these facts constitute sufficient
reasons to entertain this petition
seeking review and reconsideration of
Order dated 21.10.2016 which has arisen
out of dismissing Writ Petition
(Criminal) 136 of 2016 passed by this
Hon’ble Court.
CERTIFIED ACCORDINGLY
DRAWN & FILED BY:
OM PRAKASH
NEW DELHI:
FILED ON :09.11.2016.

Review petition criminal in writ petition criminal no.136 of 2016 before supreme court of india filed on 09.11.2016

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Review petition criminal in writ petition criminal no.136 of 2016 before supreme court of india filed on 09.11.2016

Similar to Review petition criminal in writ petition criminal no.136 of 2016 before supreme court of india filed on 09.11.2016 (20)

More from Om Prakash Poddar

More from Om Prakash Poddar (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Review petition criminal in writ petition criminal no.136 of 2016 before supreme court of india filed on 09.11.2016