Human Rights Violation By Court

1. Page 1 of 9
URGENT WHISTLEBLOWER INFORMATION-ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE MATTERS IN JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS
(WHISTLEBLOWER HAS IN OTHER CASE EARLIER SOUGHT
PROTECTION FROM LEARNED DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, PHC,
NEW DELHI ON 23.04.18)
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PHC, NEW
DELHI
(MATTER PENDING BEFORE MS. AMBIKA SINGH, LEARNED
MM-02 PHC, NEW DELHI FOR 29.05.18)
M / 2018
IN
Complaint Case No. 26381/2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sher Singh ………Complainant
Versus
Chand Bhatnagar & Ors ………..Defendants
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi …….Whistleblower/ Applicant/Complainant
URGENT WHISTLEBLOWER APPLICATION TO URGENTLY FILE
INFORMATION NECESSARY TO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY
WHISTLEBLOWER IN TERMS OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872,
SECTION 165 AND H.S. BEDI V. NHAI, 2016 (227) DLT 129/ 2016 (155)
DRJ 259/ 2016 (1) HCC (Del) 179 READ WITH LAW OF
WHISTLEBLOWERS IN JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS, NAMELY 179th
REPORT LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA DATED 14.12.01,
JUDGMENT DT. 22.08.12 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
& HARYANA IN CWP 832/ 2010 TITLED H.C.ARORA V. STATE OF
PUNJAB AND OTHERS (D.B.), HARYANA NOTIFICATION NO.
1/6/2010-3HG-IV DT. 06.09.11, COMMON CAUSE V. UNION OF
INDIA, 2015 (6) SCC 332 (3 judges) AT SCC p.344 PARA 39 AND
INDIRECT TAX PRACTITIONERS ASSN V. R.K.JAIN, 2010 (8) SCC
281 AT SCC pp.310-312 PARAS 37-41.
(NO COURT FEES, NO NOTICE TO PARTIES & NO AFFIDAVIT
PERMISSIBLE AS A GROUND FOR NON-REGISTRATION OF
APPLICATION - FURTHERMORE APPLICATION ONCE PROFFERED
IS NON-RETURNABLE HAVING BECOME PROPERTY OF THE
COURT ON MERE PRODUCTION BY WHISTLEBLOWER BEFORE
THE REGISTRY)
Respectfully Showeth:

2. Page 2 of 9
1. That this is an application to file information necessary to be brought on
record by whistleblower in terms of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 165
and H.S. Bedi V. NHAI, 2016 (227) DLT 129/ 2016 (155) DRJ 259/ 2016 (1)
HCC (Del) 179 read with law of whistleblowers in judicial institutions,
namely 179th Report Law Commission of India dated 14.12.01, Judgment dt.
22.08.12 of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP 832/ 2010 titled
H.C.Arora v. State of Punjab and others (D.B.), Haryana Notification No.
1/6/2010-3HG-IV dt. 06.09.11, Common Cause v. Union of India, 2015 (6)
SCC 332 (3 judges) at SCC p.344 para 39 and Indirect Tax Practitioners Assn
vs R.K.Jain, 2010 (8) SCC 281 at SCC pp.310-312 paras 37-41. No court fees,
no notice to parties & no affidavit permissible as a ground for non-registration
of application - furthermore application once proffered is non-returnable
having become property of the court on mere production by whistleblower
before the registry.
PENDING APPLICATIONS WITH STATUS
2. That following applications/ synopsis of applicant/ whistleblower are
pending disposal:
(1) Application seeking records etc. from Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
dated 19.09.11 (undecided till date).
(2) Application u/s 66 of Indian Evidence Act etc. dated 20.10.11 (undecided
till date).
(3) Application u/s 319/ 197 CrPC dated 04.01.13 to add public servants and
regarding sanction awaited from Union of India and Delhi Development
Authority (undecided till date).
(4) Application dated 18.02.13 for re-considering order dated 04.01.13
(undecided till date).
(5) Application u/s 210 CrPC dated 18.03.13 (undecided till date).

3. Page 3 of 9
(6) Application dated 05.09.13 for hearing arguments on application under
Article 300 dated 14.02.12 because condition imposed of fine Rupees 20,000
for being permitted to withdraw the same is not complied (undecided till date).
(7) Application u/s 91 CrPC dated 03.05.14 (undecided till date).
(8) Application u/s 323 Cr.P.C r/w 300 & 210 Cr.P.C/Section 4 (3) PC Act,
1988 dated 15.09.16 (undecided till date). [See Orders dated 06.10.16/
06.01.17]:
"06.10.16 The complainant has pressed his application u/s 323 Cr.P.C r/w
300 & 210 Cr.P.C/Section 4 (3) PC Act, 1988. Copies supplied to the opposite
party. Put up for reply/arguments on the said application on 06.01.2017.
Shorter date is requested, however, the same is declined due to pendency of
4,300 cases.
(LOVLEEN)
MM-02/PHC, New Delhi
06.10.2016"
"06.01.17 Reply to the application U/s 323 Cr. P.C r/w 300 & 210 Cr.PC/
Section 4 (3) PC Act, 1988 has been filed by the accused. Copy supplied to the
opposite party. Ld. Counsel for complainant has filed certain documents along
with list of witnesses. Be taken on record. Put up for arguments on the said
application on 30.01.2017 at 12:30 PM.
(LOVLEEN)
MM-02/PHC, New Delhi
06.01.2017"
(9) Application u/s 294 r/w Section 7 of Evidence Act dated 08.03.17
(undecided till date). [See Orders dated 08.03.17/ 20.05.17]:
"08.03.17 An application has been moved on behalf of the complainant u/s
294 r/w Section 7 of Evidence Act. Copies supplied. Put up for
reply/arguments on 20.05.2017.
(LOVLEEN)

4. Page 4 of 9
MM-02/PHC, New Delhi
Judge Code - DL0398
08.03.2017"
"20.05.17 Certain documents have been filed by the complainant. Let the same
be taken on record. At request of the complainant, put up for further
proceedings on 17.10.2017.
(LOVLEEN)
MM-02/PHC, New Delhi
20.05.2017
At this stage, Sh. S.K. Mehta, Ld. counsel for the accused has appeared and
moved an application for exemption from personal appearance of the accused.
He has been apprised of the NDOH i.e. 17.10.2017. Accused to appear in
person on the NDOH. Put up on the date fixed i.e. 17.10.2017.
(LOVLEEN)
MM-02/PHC, New Delhi
20.05.2017"
(10) Synopsis filed in compliance of Order dated 06.02.18. Pendency of the
applications has been highlighted
REASONED COMPLIANCE OF ORDERS OF HON'BLE DIVISION
BENCH ORDER DATED 25.01.17
3. That it has now become necessary to draw attention of the learned court,
which needs must necessarily be drawn, for reasoned compliance to the Orders
of Hon'ble D.B. reproduced in para 3 of Application u/s 362 CrPC dated
06.03.17 filed before Ld Spec Judge (CBI-05) copy of which has been
produced before this Ld. Court with Application u/s 294 r/w Section 7 of
Evidence Act dated 08.03.17 (undecided till date):
"3. That as regards Para 5 (second part regarding civil matter) of the Order
dated 25.02.17 in Complaint Case No. 9/15, the matter has undergone very
major changes in the meantime during 15.05.15 to 31.01.17 [in any case order

5. Page 5 of 9
under challenge in Case Nos. 536/16 & 552/16 appears to be inadvertently
mentioned as dated 13.03.09, whereas the correct date is 30.03.09]. Presently
Case Nos. 548/16 (Section 192 of Indian Succession Act, 1925), 536/16 (Civil
Suit of 1990), 552/16 (Civil Appeal of 2011) & Probate Case No. 3/17, are
pending before Ld. ADJ-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, NDOH:
05.04.17 vide Order dated 30.01.17. Publication was ordered by Ld. ADJ-02,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Probate Case No. 3/17 on 31.01.17 and
was duly published on 02.02.17 in the Delhi editions of The Statesman and
The Navbharat Times, consequent to an Order dated 25.01.17 in Crl. M.A.
No. 1345/17 in WP (C) No. 699/90 titled Sher Singh v. The Vice Chairman,
Delhi Development Authority & Ors, the operative part of which reads:
“2. The applicant is not the relative of the petitioner Sher Singh. He
litigates concerning Flat No.C-1/1489, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi,
registrant thereof was Sher Singh. The applicant claims an interest in
the flat in question on the basis of a Will executed by Sher Singh and it
is the case of the applicant that the Will has been proved. The applicant
has been asked whether he has a document showing probate of the Will
being granted. He states that he does not have any.
3. We had given reasons in our order dated January 4, 2017 as to why
various applications and Crl.M.A.No.6982/2016 filed by the applicant
were being dismissed.
4. We see no merit in the instant applications and maintain the same
reasons which are contained in the order dated January 4, 2017.
5. The fear of the applicant that he would be prejudiced in other
proceedings is misfounded because we have not rejected the prayer
made on merits. We have not dealt with the merits of the issues raised.
We have only held that the view taken by this Court on September 24,

6. Page 6 of 9
1991 is correct that these questions are highly disputed questions of fact
and remedy has to be at a forum where evidence can be led. Surely, if
the applicant approaches a forum where evidence can be led he would
be entitled to lead evidence and based thereon a final decision.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
YOGESH KHANNA, J
JANUARY 25, 2017
VLD
W.P.(C) 699/1990 Page 2 of 2”
MANNER OF DECISION OF PENDING APPLICATIONS
4. That, if locus of applicant/ whistleblower is not in issue, pending application
dated 19.09.11 needs must be decided first and other nine applications in
sequence of their filing.
5. That, if locus of applicant/ whistleblower is an issue disabling the applicant
from prosecuting the case as the accused have insisted and the Ld. MM-02
appears to have accepted at times and rejected on some occasions, which lack
of locus, Hon'ble High Court (D.B.) also seemingly supports by its dogged
insistence on locus being subject to Probate Case decision in case of
whistleblower/ applicant (although the settled law has it that 340 CrPC matters
do not attract any disqualification by way of locus and even a stranger or an
anonymous 340 CrPC that raises cogent justiciable issue must be decided one
way or other on its merit), then this Ld. Court would have to fairly await the
outcome of Probate Case 3/17 titled Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi v. General
Public and others, NDOH: 31.05.18 (pending before Learned ADJ- Wakf)
before AR could properly be expected to lead the pre-charge evidence.
6. That the applications dated 19.09.11, 20.10.11, 04.01.13, 18.02.13,
18.03.13, 05.09.13 (in application dated 14.02.12), 03.05.14, 15.09.16 and
08.03.17 must all be decided in sequence so as to enable the applicant to lead
the truthful pre-charge evidence in this criminal conspiracy involving not only

7. Page 7 of 9
the accused and officials of DDA and Delhi Police but also judicial officers,
thus this matter may even be attracting the mischief of Articles 50 and 235 of
the Constitution of India, which matters are pending before Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi, NDOH: 26.07.18. As per the cause list dated 13.04.18 of
Hon'ble High Court (pp.124-126) these cases are:
(a) Court 30, Item 16. TR.P.(CRL.) 47/2015, SHER SINGH THROUGH
ATTORNEY LT COL SARVADAMAN SINGH OBEROI Vs. CHAND
BHATNAGAR & ORS.
(b) Court 30, Item 17. W.P.(CRL) 588/2013, LT.COL.RETD.
SARVADAMAN SINGH Vs. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI THR. ITS
REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS.
(c) Court 30, Item 17. CRLM.C. 282/2013, LT.COL.RETD.
SARVADAMAN SINGH Vs. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL.
WHISTLEBLOWER MATTER - HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION BY
THE COURT
7. That this is a whistleblower (administration of justice in judicial
institutions) matter under Articles 50 and 235 of the Constitution of India and
shall not be divulged to accused or to State/ Executive at this stage since
similar matters are pending before Hon'ble High Court. The only reason to file
this information here is to comply with Order dated 02.05.18 passed by Ld.
MM-02 cornering the AR/ whistleblower/ applicant to lead pre-charge
evidence, which is inappropriate at this stage for more than one reason, as
already elucidated. That the line of trial adopted by the Learned Trial Court in
this matter since 14.02.12, ignoring to decide as many as 10 cogent
applications which are still pending, is in clear breach of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India, Articles 1 & 11 of ICESCR, 1966, Article 26 of ICCPR,
1966 and Sections 30 & 31 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (Act
10 of 1994). "Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the

8. Page 8 of 9
same, it becomes lifeless." (Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, 2003 (11) SCC
519 at SCC p.527 para 19.)
PROPERTY MATTERS
8. That in a property matter it is well settled that the death of an accused in
illegal occupation of the suit property does not qualify for automatic discharge
without deciding status of property, as has been illegally done in this case vide
an order dated 15.01.14 passed without prior notice to parties and without
hearing the parties on a date fixed for purposes of consideration of the vital
issue jeopardising the disposal of suit property. That even the concurrent civil
trial concerning suit property was, as per well settled law, required to decide
the status of the suit property which it failed to do, before illegally disposing
of the civil case (case since restored in 2015 and pending for 31.05.18 before
Ld. ADJ-Wakf, PHC, New Delhi) on 31.03.09.
SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION [SEE ALSO PARA 2(3) ABOVE]
9. That a provisional sanction for prosecution was perhaps approved by the
Principal Commissioner, DDA in September 2016 (not yet conveyed officially
to whistleblower or even informed to courts properly in seisen of the matter)
apparently remained unactioned till February 2018 in very unclear
circumstances, latest communications in the matter are understood to be in
March, April and May 2018, as orally learnt by whistleblower in meetings
with Director Vigilance and Chief Vigilance Officer of DDA. Reply to RTI
applications filed in office of DDA PIOs concerned, namely Vigilance (DVO-
I), DDA and Housing (AD(SFS)), DDA is awaited by the whistleblower.
SPECIAL JURISDICTION ATTRACTED IN THIS VERY INCIDENT/
MATTER
10. That as per well settled law this Ld. Court must first decide relevant
pending applications before steamrolling the prosecution into an unwarranted
action at the instance of AR of the complainant due only to the insistence of

9. Page 9 of 9
the accused who are in criminal conspiracy with, (at this stage many unnamed)
public officials of DDA and Delhi Police in offences amenable more properly
to special jurisdiction under Act 49 of 1988, this very incident/ matter remains
pending before Special Judge (CBI-05) in CC 6/16 titled Sarvadaman Singh
Oberoi v. Chand Bhatnagar and others for 13.07.18.
PRAYER
It is most respectfully prayed that action for protection of this
whistleblower may be taken in accordance to law of whistleblowers and law
of administration of justice in judicial institutions, in consultation with
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Learned District and Sessions Judge, PHC,
New Delhi, if found necessary, since they are already seized of an earlier
request for protection vide letters dated 23.04.18 in another matter, without
necessarily hearing the whistleblower at this stage, who in any case shall not
be in Delhi from 15.05.18 to 16.05.18, 21.05.18 and 29.05.18, so as to pass a
reasoned order in this application for protection from judicial officers, well
before 29.05.18, the next date of hearing in this matter by Learned MM-02.
Place: New Delhi
Date: 14.05.2018
Whistleblower/ Applicant
Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden, Sector 47, Gurgaon 122018
Mob: 9818768349, Email: manioberoi@ gmail.com