1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

To,
The Deputy Registrar
High Court of Delhi.
New Delhi
CRL. REV. P. NO. _______OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi …Revisionist/Applicant/Informant in person

Versus
Union of India and Ors. ……….Defendants/Respondents(Ex-parte)
Sir,

Will you kindly treat this accompanying application u/s 482/401 CrPC as an

urgent one in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders. The grounds

of urgency are:

The applicant, in absence of any viable statutory remedy specified in special

law of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Sections 30 & 31, is now left

without a formal/ workable remedy in connected human rights matters which

are coming up on 18.12.18 before Ld. ASJ-01, PHC, ND.

Note 1: Prior notice of motion to ex-parte defendants/ respondents not

necessary at stage of filing.

Note 2: Division Bench matter vide Rule 1(xx) in Part B of Chapter 3 titled

“Jurisdiction” in Volume V of the Delhi High Court Rules, 1967 (Paras 32-33

of Crl. Rev. P. No. 247/2017 titled Court on its own motion v. Dhanpat

decided on 29.03.17)

Place: New Delhi

Date: 11.12.2018
Applicant in revision petition and informant in person
Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden, Sector 47, Gurugram 122018
Mob: 9818768349, Email: [email protected]
 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. REV. P. NO. ______/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi …Revisionist/Applicant/Informant in person

Versus
Union of India and Ors. ……….Defendants/Respondents(Ex-parte)

COURT FEES

Place: New Delhi

Date: 11.12.2018
Applicant in revision petition and informant in person
Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden, Sector 47, Gurugram 122018
Mob: 9818768349, Email: [email protected]
 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. REV. P. NO. ______/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi, aged 69 years s/o late Capt. H.S. Oberoi, r/o 1102,
Tower 1, Uniworld Garden, Sector 47, Gurgaon 122018

……Revisionist/Applicant/Informant in person

Versus

l. The Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,

Government of India, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi 110001.

2. National Human Rights Commission, through its Secretary General, Manav

Adhikar Bhawan Block-C, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi 110023.

3. The High Court of Delhi, New Delhi 110003 through its Registrar General.

4.The Supreme Court of India, New Delhi 110201 through its Secretary
General.

5.The High Court of Bombay, Fort, Mumbai 400032 through its Registrar
General.

6.The High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh 160001 through its
Registrar General.

7. The Latur District Bar Association through its Secretary, Sh. Ingle Sharad
M., Mitra Nagar, Latur, Maharashtra 413512, Mob: 8605544574

8.The New Delhi Bar Association through its Secretary, Sh. Neeraj, Patiala
House Court Complex, New Delhi- 110001, Mob. 981107593

9.The Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, 4th Floor,
A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.

10. The Bharatiya Janata Party through its National President, Sh. Amitbhai
Anil Chandra Shah, Central Office, Bharatiya Janata Party, 6, Pandit Deen
Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi-110002

……….Defendants/Respondents(Ex-parte)

REVISION PETITION OF INFORMANT/WHISTLEBLOWER FOR

GRANT OF DECLARATION IN THE LAW OF COSTS U/S 482/401/395
CrPC R/W 39(1)(v)/ 148(3), 250, 309, 342, 357, 357A-C, 358 & 359/ 176(1)
 4
MISCHIEF 174(1) CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE R/W
SECTIONS 302/166A(b)/149/ 120B/34 IPC R/W ARTICLE 51A(a)/50/235
& 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, MANDATING
REPORTING INFORMATION BY EVERY PERSON AWARE OF
OFFENCE OR INTENTION TO COMMIT OFFENCE TO NEAREST
MAGISTRATE WITH PRAYER FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN
TWO PROTEST PETITIONS, M NO. 3532/2018 & M NO. 3553/2018,
PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF MS. RUBY ALKA GUPTA, LD.
ASJ-01, PHC/NDD DOH:18.12.18 TILL DECISION ON SUCH
DECLARATION [COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS V. STATE, 2011
(177) DLT 229, MARY ANGEL V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, 1999 (5)
SCC 209]

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice

And His Companion Justices

of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

Applicant respectfully submits as follows:

1. That on 30.01.18, a report of incident of 01.12.14 was made by

applicant herein u/s 39(1)(v) )/ 148(3), 250 342, 357, 357A-C, 358 &

359 CrPC basis CrPC Section 176(1) “mischief Section 174(1)

CrPC”/ Section 302/166A(b)/149/120B/34 IPC to the nearest

magistrate having jurisdiction over the Respondent No. 1, Union of

India, whom, he on that date was persuaded to believe, was

responsible for protection of human rights under international

criminal law r/w Sections 30 & 31 of Act 10 of 1994, no Section 31

notification appointing independent human rights prosecutor, having

been appointed at all, least of all in accord with Paris Principles [such

a prosecutor shall not be arrested in his human rights duty by the

millstone of “prior sanction of the executive power” u/s 197 CrPC

 5
since his sole duty is to prosecute the offending “organs” of the

executive power itself, howsoever high that organ, which term

includes every holder of public office and every public body/

authority/ office, excepting only the holders of office enjoying

Constitutional bar of Article 361(2)]. [“39. Public to give

information of certain offences – (1) Every person, aware of the

commission of, or of the intention of any other person to commit, any

offence…. Shall, in the absence of any reasonable excuse, the burden

of proving which excuse shall lie upon the person so aware, forthwith

give information to the nearest Magistrate….. of such commission or

intention.”]

2. That under the provisions of Section 21 of Act 26 of 1966 such report,

which the whistleblower/ applicant was bound even under Article

51A(a) r/w Articles 50/235 (protection of judges of subordinate

courts from “mischief misuse of the executive power”) made by

whistleblower/ applicant on 30.01.18 was assigned to the court of Ms.

Ruby Alka Gupta, ASJ-01 NDD/PHC New Delhi and taken up on

31.01.18 and subsequent days.

3. That thereafter number of additional information were filed in the

report of incident of 01.12.14 by applicant as whistleblower, pointing

to mischief “against public servant doing official duties” [Gayasi

v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 (2) SCC 713, State of Orissa v.

Arjun Das, 1999 (7) SCC 165] thereby raising grave suspicion basis

CrPC Section 176(1) “mischief Section 174(1) CrPC”/ Section

302/166A(b)/149/120B/34 IPC, which finally ended in dismissal of

the report vide an order dated 24.04.18 passed in CC 20/2018 titled

 6
Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi v. Union of India and others, CNR No:

DLND01-000756-2018.

4. That, in its judicial-cum-administrative jurisdiction a reference was

taken up by the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, PHC/NDD on 11.04.18

seeking decision on jurisdictional facts whistleblower, raising

challenge basis constitutionally improper jurisdiction of the trial court

in re CC No. 20/2018 titled Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi v. Union of

India, u/s 7 of Act 26 of 1966 r/w Vol. IV, Ch. I, Pt. A.2 as clarified

in Vol. IV, Ch. I, Pt. G.

5. That this reference was allocated on the administrative-cum-judicial

side to ASJ i/c Adm. & ASJ i/c Judl., presumably under Section 7 of

Act 26 of 1966 r/w Vol. IV, Ch. I, Pt. A.2 which is, in terms, inter

alia:

“2. Supervision by Controlling Courts in executive matters—

Controlling Courts are required to exercise an active and continuous

supervision over subordinate Courts in regard to all matters affecting

the judicial administration and are not relieved of responsibility in

regard to anything which may be found to be in an unsatisfactory

state, unless they can show that they have done all that may

reasonably be expected of them to have the directions of the High

Court enforced and to prevent the occurrence of irregularities.”

6. That reference as made above, on 11.04.18 was accepted by the Ld.

District & Sessions Judge, in view of locus of whistleblower CrPC

39(1)(v) r/w Article 51A(h) of the Constitution of India and the

cogent argument made under Article 246 List I Item 13 r/w List III

Item 1 (exception clause) of the Constitution of India. That outcome

of this reference under Section 7 of Act 26 of 1966 r/w Vol. IV, Ch.
 7
I, Pt. A.2 (as clarified in Vol. IV, Ch. I, Pt. G) was not made known

to whistleblower and as per file inspection of the trial court record,

not even to the trial court of Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, ASJ-01

NDD/PHC, New Delhi whose jurisdiction on and after 11.04.18,

clearly constitutes a “jurisdictional fact” non-decision by a

subordinate court upon such “jurisdictional fact” violates para 22

“Consequences of the Trial Court disregarding well settled law”

[in this case Article 141 law on Article 246], as also para 23

“Judgment passed by a Court having no jurisdiction is a nullity”

[Notification of the Court was not issued by the Article 246 Seventh

Schedule List 1 Item 13 competent authority, Union of India] of the

judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in NDMC v. Prominent

Hotels Limited, 2015 SCC OnLine 11910, which, according to para

31.4 & 32, states, inter alia:

“31.4. The Registrar General shall ensure the compliance of these

directions by all the Courts below. Copy of this judgment be sent to

the Registrar General.

32. Considering the principles of law discussed in this judgment, copy

of this judgment be sent to the Delhi Judicial Academy. The Delhi

Judicial Academy shall sensitize the judges with respect to the

principles relating to the consequences for not following the well

settled law.”

7. That in Carona Limited v. Parvathy Swaminathan, 2007 (8) SCC

559 it was held at SCC pp.569-571 at paras 27-32 & 36:

"27. Stated simply, the fact or facts upon which the jurisdiction of a

Court, a Tribunal or an Authority depends can be said to be a

'jurisdictional fact'. If the jurisdictional fact exists, a Court, Tribunal

 8
or Authority has jurisdiction to decide other issues. If such fact does

not exist, a Court, Tribunal or Authority cannot act. It is also well

settled that a Court or a Tribunal cannot wrongly assume existence

of jurisdictional fact and proceed to decide a matter. The underlying

principle is that by erroneously assuming existence of a jurisdictional

fact, a subordinate Court or an inferior Tribunal cannot confer upon

itself jurisdiction which it otherwise does not possess.

28. In Halsbury's Laws of England, (4th Edn.), Vol.1, para 55, p.61;

Reissue, Vol.1(1), para 68, pp.114- 15, it has been stated:

"Where the jurisdiction of a tribunal is dependent on the existence of

a particular state of affairs, that state of affairs may be described as

preliminary to, or collateral to the merits of the issue. If, at the

inception of an inquiry by an inferior tribunal, a challenge is made to

its jurisdiction, the tribunal has to make up its mind whether to act or

not and can give a ruling on the preliminary or collateral issue; but

that ruling is not conclusive".

The existence of a jurisdictional fact is thus a sine qua non or

condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by a Court or

Tribunal.

JURISDICTIONAL FACT AND ADJUDICATORY FACT

29. But there is distinction between 'jurisdictional fact' and

'adjudicatory fact' which cannot be ignored. An 'adjudicatory fact' is

a 'fact in issue' and can be determined by a Court, Tribunal or

Authority on 'merits', on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties.

It is no doubt true that it is very difficult to distinguish 'jurisdictional

fact' and 'fact in issue' or 'adjudicatory fact'. Nonetheless the

difference between the two cannot be overlooked.

 9
30. In Halsbury's Laws of England, (4th Edn.), Vol.1, para 55, p.61;

Reissue, Vol.1(1), para 68, pp.114- 15, it is stated:

"There is often great difficulty in determining whether a matter is

collateral to the merits or goes to the merits. The distinction may still

be important; for an erroneous decision on the merits of the case will

be unimpeachable unless an error of law is apparent on the face of

the record of the determination or unless a right of appeal lies to a

court in respect of the matter alleged to have been erroneously

determined. An error of law or fact on an issue collateral to the merits

may be impugned on an application for an order of certiorari to

quash the decision or in any other appropriate form of proceedings,

including indirect or collateral proceedings. Affidavit evidence is

admissible on a disputed issue of jurisdictional fact, although the

superior courts are reluctant to make an independent determination

of an issue of fact on which there was a conflict of evidence before

the inferior tribunal or which has been found by an inspector after a

local inquiry".

31. In R. v. Fulham Rent Tribunal, (1950) 2 All ER 211, it was held

that the question whether premium for renewal of tenancy was or was

not paid was a jurisdictional fact and, therefore, was held to be a

condition precedent for the lawful exercise of jurisdiction by a Rent

Tribunal. In Brittain v. Kinnaird, (1819) 1 B&B 432, however, the

factum as to possession of a 'boat' with gunpowder on board was held

to be a part of the offence charged and thus a finding of fact or

adjudicatory fact. It was stated: "The logical basis for discriminating

between these cases and other falling on opposite sides of the line, is

not easily discernible". (emphasis supplied)

 10
32. Likewise, the fact whether the petitioner was an 'adult' in adoption

proceedings was not held to be a 'jurisdictional' fact (Eversole v.

Smith, 159 SW 2nd 35).

xxxx

36. It is thus clear that for assumption of jurisdiction by a Court or a

Tribunal, existence of jurisdictional fact is a condition precedent. But

once such jurisdictional fact is found to exist, the Court or Tribunal

has power to decide adjudicatory facts or facts in issue."

8. That this revision petition, a D.B. Matter as per Rule, for the time

being, in the absence of transparency on outcome of 11.04.18

reference, is necessarily to be made by the whistleblower, to bring

attention of this Hon’ble Court, in support of argument at paras 1 to

7 above, that the Hon’ble Single Judge whose orders of 07.05.18 &

15.05.18 have been rightly upheld vide Order of Hon’ble Division

Bench No. I dated 12.10.18 in LPA 306/18 titled Sarvadaman Singh

Oberoi v. Union of India and others had made a note of this

controversy in Order dated 15.05.18 passed in reference u/s 395

inappropriately labelled as Tr.P (Crl.) 24/2018 Sarvadaman Singh

Oberoi v. Union of India:

“Crl.M.A.No.9241/2018 (under Sections 165 of Indian Evidence Act

and 151 CPC)

1. I have heard the petitioner/applicant, who is present in Court

today.

2. The petitioner/applicant’s contention is that no Human Rights

Courts have been established in the entire country so far. No Special

Public Prosecutor has been appointed. The notification issued by the

Central Government is defective.

 11
3. The applicant further urges that the learned Registrar General

should have dealt with the transfer petition on the administrative side,

it was not required to be listed before the Single Bench. He prays that

the petition be listed before the Registrar General for appropriate

orders.

4. A perusal of the file reveals that by an order dated 07th May, 2018,

the matter has already been disposed of by this Court. The applicant

has been permitted to address arguments on merits before the Court

concerned on 23rd May, 2018.

5. The instant application to place on record certain documents,

cannot be considered as no matter is pending before this Court. The

petitioner will be at liberty to produce the documents before the Court

concerned as per law.

6. Since no matter is pending before this Court, no directions to list

the matter before the Registrar General as urged can be given.

7. The application stands disposed of.

S.P.GARG, J.

MAY 15, 2018”

9. That the stand of the whistleblower in paras 1to 8 above is further

reinforced by Judgment and Order dated 12.10.18 passed by Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi in LPA 306/18 Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi v.

Union of India:

“1. The appellant in person has filed this appeal against order dated

May 07, 2018 and May 15, 2018 passed in TR.P.(Crl.) 24/2018 and

CRL.M.A. No. 9241/2018 in TR.P.(Crl.) 24/2018 respectively by the

learned Single Bench of this Court.

 12
2. By order dated May 07, 2018, the learned Single Bench has

observed that merely on the basis of ‘bias’ alleged the case in

question cannot be transferred and dismissed the transfer application

of the appellant /petitioner.

3. By order dated May 15, 2018 the learned Single Bench has

disposed of the application of the appellant / petitioner with the

observation that the application to place on record certain documents

and to list the matter before the Registrar General of this Court

cannot be considered, as no matter is pending before this Court, with

liberty to produce the documents before the Court concerned as per

law.

4. Today before us, the notification being F.6/13/2011-

Judl./Suptlaw/721-725 dated June 14, 2011, constituting the Special

Court of Additional Sessions Judge 01 in each District as Human

Rights Court, is being challenged by the appellant in person. The

appellant is required to challenge the notification in an appropriate

proceeding and not in this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters

Patent.

5. The order of the learned Single Bench dated May 07, 2018 and

May 15, 2018, in our considered view, do not call for interference.

6. However, in case the appellant feels that the Special Court has

been constituted in violation of the provision of the Human Rights

Act, the appellant is at liberty to challenge the said notification in

accordance with law.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
 13
OCTOBER 12, 2018/”

10. That unless the view of the whistleblower, which so far has not found

acceptance, prevails and civil appeal under Civil Procedure Code

becomes available, whistleblower has been left remediless in this

human rights case, which should not have been the case in view of

exception clause List III Item 1, Article 246 of the Constitution of

India. (Seventh Schedule). That no special public prosecutor,

independent in accord with Paris Principles was provided to assist the

trial court as no notification has been issued under Section 31 of Act

10 of 1994. That Section 31 is itself defective in terms of Article 246,

so also Section 30, the matter being of List I (Union List) the State

Government can have no power to notify the appointment.

11. That appeal, revision, review and reference are largely creatures of

the statute and the implacable approach adopted by the trial court in

CC No. 20/2018 titled Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi v. Union of India

has resulted in a situation of leaving the petitioner completely

remediless, a situation where there has been no “judgement” meeting

the criteria of Section 353 CrPC and the special Act is silent on

appeal, revision, review and reference, which needs to be avoided by

resort to Section 7 of Act 26 of 1966 r/w Vol. IV, Ch. I, Pt. A.2 as

clarified in Vol. IV, Ch. I, Pt. G of the High Court Rules, as the only

remaining option of Special Leave Petition is illusory as no evidence

has been led and no statement has been recorded even of

whistleblower/ applicant what to talk of witnesses. That in Akash

Gupta v. Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training, 2006 (88)

DRJ 32 (D.B.) at DRJ p. 40 para 14 it was held:

 14
“14. It may also be mentioned here that in case it is held that an order

passed by the Registrar under Rule 3 is not appealable under Rule 4

to a Judge in Chamber, an aggrieved person may be required to file

a Special Leave Petition, if it is not a 'judgment'. Such interpretation

in our opinion should be avoided.”

12. That whistleblower is aghast to learn that whereas this Constitutional

breach was referred as early as 11.04.18 to ASJ i/c Adm. & ASJ i/c

Judl. by the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, yet the Reference u/s 395

CrPC 01.05.18 to Registrar General, High Court, appears to be silent

on this aspect, if para 6 of the Order dated 07.05.18 passed by Hon’ble

Single Judge “6. By an order dated 01.05.2018, learned District and

Sessions Judge noted that since the Court of learned Addl. Sessions

Judge-01 was the only Court in the District to deal with the matters

relating to Human Rights Act as per Notification No.F.6/13/2011-

Judl./Suptlaw/721-725 dated 14.06.2011, the matter was placed

before the Registrar General of this Court for 03.05.2018 for

assignment to some other Court.” is to be relied upon.

That this anomaly is to be examined and/ or resolved in contra-

distinction to paras 2-3 of Hon’ble Single Judge Order dated

15.05.18:

“2. The petitioner/applicant’s contention is that no Human Rights

Courts have been established in the entire country so far. No Special

Public Prosecutor has been appointed. The notification issued by the

Central Government is defective.

3. The applicant further urges that the learned Registrar General

should have dealt with the transfer petition on the administrative

side, it was not required to be listed before the Single Bench. He prays
 15
that the petition be listed before the Registrar General for

appropriate orders.”

13. That the fulcrum of the two protest petitions pending for 18.12.18 is

mischief whistleblower left remediless and additional mischief

“jurisdictional facts” as explicated in paragraphs above, rests on the

premise that the Ld. District & Sessions Judge alone having been

clothed [as regards Administration of Justice in Judicial Institutions

matters raised by whistleblower qua 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] under Article 235/ Section 7 Act 26 of

1966 with “supervision and control” was “required to exercise an

active and continuous supervision over subordinate Courts in regard

to all matters affecting the judicial administration and are not

relieved of responsibility in regard to anything which may be found

to be in an unsatisfactory state, unless they can show that they have

done all that may reasonably be expected of them to have the

directions of the High Court enforced and to prevent the occurrence

of irregularities.”

14. That the appropriate law to be invoked in the present case is mischief

“jurisdictional fact” to be placed for adjudication before the Article

235/ Section 7 Act 26 of 1966 Authority for “Supervision and

Control” in the District Court with particular reference to

“Administration of Justice” wherein Special Courts of Human Rights

are yet to be given Special Public Prosecutors in accordance with

Constitution and law as also these denuded Special Courts are not

constituted properly by a Union of India Notification (as opposed to

 16
current notification issued by Lt. Governor of Delhi u/s 4(1)(d)(i) of

Act 26 of 1966) in harmony with Article 246 of the Constitution of

India. That most clearly the “jurisdictional fact” involving a matter of

grave import in the “administration of justice” wherein Special

Courts of Human Rights have not yet been set up as elucidated above

since 28.09.1993 in accord with Article 246 r/w Sections 30 & 31 of

Act 10 of 1994, is a serious matter.

15. That in Crl. A. No. 910/2008 titled Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P.

decided by Hon’ble D.B. of this Hon’ble Court on 06.02.15 it was

held at para 684.55 relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab &

Anr., 2012 (10) SCC 303 “55. In the very nature of its constitution,

it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in

course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of

unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim

quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa

esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is

authorised, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done

by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else

not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then

that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex

debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real,

complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power

possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is of wide

amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and

circumspection.” That extract of Crl. Rev. P. No. 247/2017 titled

Court on its own motion v. Dhanpat decided by Hon’ble D.B. on

29.03.17 is relevant:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
 33

16. That the Court of Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, ASJ-01, NDD/PHC, New

Delhi, refused even to take on record documents sought to be

 34
submitted at date of hearing on 15.11.18 in M No. 3532/2018

Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi v. Union of India (Protest petition in M

No. 33/2018 CNR No: DLND01-008613-2018 & M No. 66/2018

CNR No: DLND01-011256-2018 both titled Sarvadaman Singh

Oberoi v. Union of India) unless costs of Rs 5000/- are first paid in

accord with an Order dated 25.10.18 dismissing M No. 66/2018, and

maintained the similar stand in M No. 3553/2018, both cases now

fixed for 18.12.18 subject to payment of cost Rs 5000/-.

17. That M No. 3553/2018 (Protest petition in M No. 3532/2018) was

filed with a request not to be listed before the Court of Ms. Ruby Alka

Gupta, ASJ-01, PHC/NDD, New Delhi but Ld. District & Sessions

Judge PHC/NDD listed it before the Court of Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta,

ASJ-01, NDD/PHC, New Delhi perhaps on account of doctrine of

necessity. The cogent reasons for the request of the applicant in M

No. 3553/2018 titled Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi v. Union of India

were stated as follows:

(a) mischief waiver not given by whistleblower, [Mammon v. The

Crown, 1922 CriLJ 446]

(b) mischief 340 CrPC/ administration of justice qua judicial

institutions bar of penal action upon whistleblower, till proper judicial

determination under Section 340 CrPC (Jawala Parshad v. Ram

Parshad, AIR 1940 Lah 526, In re K.L. Gauba, AIR 1942 Lah 105

(FB))

(c) mischief “jurisdictional fact” non decision on challenge raised to

jurisdiction on 11.04.18, [Carona Limited v. Parvathy

Swaminathan, 2007 (8) SCC 559] also

 35
(d) mischief bias on 25.10.18 arising out of penalty imposed,

imposing penal costs of Rs 5000/-, on whistleblower/ applicant u/s

39(1)(v) CrPC, without prior show cause notice, without hearing on

such a mandatory prior show cause notice, per law, very well

established over two centuries of jurisprudence, imposing penal costs

of Rs 5000/-, which attract mischief ‘Subordinate Courts are

restricted to the four corners of 148(3), 250, 342, 357, 357A-C, 358

& 359 CrPC’ in criminal jurisdiction and costing powers in civil

jurisdiction, which civil jurisdiction has not been accepted so far by

the trial court for purposes of this case, for which kindly see para 10

above. [Commissioner of Customs v. State, 2011 (177) DLT 229,

Sahibzada Sh. Abdul Hamid v. Sayyed Ahmad Shah, AIR 1943

Lah 26, Mary Angel v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 (5) SCC 209 &

Report No. 240, Law Commission of India, 09.05.2012] and,

(e) compounded mischief bias vide Order dated 15.11.18 in M No.

3532/2018 Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi v. Union of India whereby the

Court of Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, ASJ-01, NDD/PHC, New Delhi,

refused even to take on record documents explaining difficulties of

the whistleblower/ applicant sought to be submitted at first date of

hearing unless costs of Rs 5000/- are first paid.

PRAYER

That it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

(i) grant declaration u/s 482/401 CrPC whether imposition of costs

by subordinate courts (Part VI Chapter VI of the Constitution of

India) are foreign to criminal procedure in a proceeding borne of

Section 39(1)(v) CrPC [Commissioner of Customs v. State, 2011

(177) DLT 229] and/ or

 36
(ii) grant declaration u/s 482/401 CrPC whether imposition of costs

by subordinate courts (Part VI Chapter VI of the Constitution of

India) are foreign to criminal procedure unless imposed in

accordance with Sections 148(3), 250, 309, 342, 357, 357A-C, 358 &

359 CrPC, [Mary Angel v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 (5) SCC 209]

and/or

(iii) grant u/s 482/401 CrPC stay of proceedings in the court of Ms

Ruby Alka Gupta, ASJ-01, PHC/NDD in two protest petitions, M No.

3532/2018 & M No. 3553/2018 pending for 18.12.18 so as to protect

the whistleblower/ informant under Section 39(1)(v) CrPC till a final

decision on the propriety of costs in a matter arising out of a public

duty of applicant u/s 39(1)(v) CrPC [Common Cause v. Union of

India, 2015 (6) SCC 332 (3 judges) at SCC p.344 para 39, Crl. Rev.

P. No. 247/2017 titled Court on its own motion v. Dhanpat decided

by Hon’ble D.B. on 29.03.17 and Crl. A. No. 910/2008 titled Vikas

Yadav v. State of U.P. decided by Hon’ble D.B. on 06.02.15] and/or

(iv) pass any other order or direction as may be just and fair in the

facts and circumstances of this case.

Place: New Delhi

Date: 11.12.2018
Applicant in revision petition and informant in person
Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden, Sector 47, Gurugram 122018
Mob: 9818768349, Email: [email protected]
 37
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. REV. P. NO. ______/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi …Revisionist/Applicant/Informant in person

Versus
Union of India and Ors. ……….Defendants/Respondents(Ex-parte)

AFFIDAVIT- APPLICATION U/S 482/401 CrPC

I, Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi, aged 69 years S/o Capt. H.S. Oberoi,

R/o 1102, Tower-1, Uniworld Garden, Sector-47, Gurgaon, presently at New

Delhi, solemnly affirm and declare:

1. That the contents of the above said application at paragraphs 1 to 17 in

the matter of application u/s 482/401 CrPC are true to the best of my

knowledge and belief and based on the record of the courts which have dealt

with this matter in last three decades.

2. That I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the

present case and am also competent to swear this affidavit.

DEPONENT

Verification:
Verified presently at New Delhi on this 11th day of December 2018 that the

contents of above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge

and belief and nothing material has been concealed therein at all.

DEPONENT
 38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. REV. P. NO. ______/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi …Revisionist/Applicant/Informant in person

Versus
Union of India and Ors. ……….Defendants/Respondents(Ex-parte)

INDEX

S. COURT
PARTICULARS DATE PG.
NO. FEES
1. Urgent Application 11.12.18 1

2. Court fees 11.12.18 2

3. Application u/s 482/401 CrPC with 11.12.18 3-37

affidavit

8. Total 10.00

Place: New Delhi

Date: 11.12.2018
Applicant in revision petition and informant in person
Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden, Sector 47, Gurugram 122018
Mob: 9818768349, Email: [email protected]