Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
-
Upload
pvravi-chandran -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
0
Transcript of Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
1/24
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1579 OF 2011
In
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 127 OF 2011
(Arising out of Final Order and Judgement dated 04.04.2011 passed by the
Honble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011)
IN THE MATTER OF:
A REVIEW PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
READ WITH ORDER XL RULE 2 OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 1966,
AGAINST THE FINAL ORDER AND JUDGEMENT DATED 04.04.2011
PASSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN WRIT
PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 127 OF 2011)
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
P.V.Ravi Chandran
Advocate,5, Divya Krupa,
1st Street Extn.
Sri Krishna Nagar,
Maduravayal,
Chennai 600095 . Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Department of Home Affairs,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
Nav Dehli 110001.
2. The State of Jammu and Kashmir
Represented by its Chief Secretary,Department of Home,
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
2/24
2
Secretariat,
Srinagar 190009,
Jammu and Kashmir
3. The Surveyor General of India,
Survey of India
Hathibarkala Estate
Dehra Dun 248001,
Uttara Khand . Respondents
To
The Honble Chief Justice of India and his companion Honble Justice of
the Supreme Court of India
Humble Petition of the Petitioner above named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Petitioner above named seeks review of order dated 04.04.2011
passed by this Honble Court (Hon'ble THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Honble Mr.
Justice K.S.PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN, And Hon'ble Mr. Justice
SWATANTER KUMAR) under Article 137 of the Constitution of India,
whereby the Honble Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 127 of 2011, wherein this Honble Court was pleased to pass following
order Heard the petitioner, who has appeared in-person. The writ petition is
dismissed.
2. That the facts leading to file the instant Petition in brief are as under: -
i) The Gazetteer of Kashmr and Ladk compiled under the direction
of the Quarter Master General in India in the Intelligence Branch and
was first Published in 1890 and the aforesaid Gazetteer of Kashmr
and Ladk gives a description and details of places inside Kashmir
which are evidence apropos issue of the territorial extent of Kashmir
at the time of her accession to the new dominion of India on 26.10
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
3/24
3
1947 pertaining to the period of the commencement of the
Constitution of India.
ii) The maps, viz. the official maps attached to the 2 White Papers
published in July 1948 and February 1950 by the Government of
India's Ministry of States, headed, incidentally, by Sardar Vallabhbhai
Patel, under the authority of India's Surveyor General G.F. Heaney
bind it in law and give them the legal status to determine the extent of
the territory of the State of Kashmir as stipulated in Entry 15 in the
First Schedule of the Constitution on India.
iii) Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had in his telegram dated 26 October, 1947
to the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, reiterated and in no
uncertain terms stated thus, "Kashmir's Northern frontiers, as you are
aware, run in common with those of three countries, Afghanistan,
`the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' and `China' ". Also, the
Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir states in his correspondence with
Lord Mountbatten of Burma dated October 26, 1947, Besides, my
State has a common boundary with the Soviet Republic and
China. The said legal documents are of profound importance in
determining the territorial extent of the state of Kashmir pertaining to
the period of the commencement of the Constitution of India.
iv) The 1st respondent, however, pursuant to a 17 para Memorandum
dated 1 July 1954 issued by the 1
st
respondent herein, which stated
inter alia that the frontier should be considered a firm and definite
one, which is not open to discussion with any one. A system of check
posts should be spread along this entire frontier. More especially, we
should have check posts in such places as might be considered
disputed areas, published a new map of Kashmir altering the
http://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20010105/iin05014.htmlhttp://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20010105/iin05014.html -
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
4/24
4
boundaries of the state of Jammu and Kashmir in such a manner that
the state of Jammu and Kashmir was depicted as not having a border
with the then territory of the Soviet Union and moreover not depicting
vast areas which were previously depicted as integral part of Kashmr
inter alia in the aforesaid official maps attached to the 2 White Papers
published in July 1948 and February 1950 by the Government of
India's Ministry of States, thus verily causing cessionof the territory
of India and alteration of the boundaries by the 1st respondent
resulting in the diminution of the territory of India, and the same was
done with out amending the Constitution of India as laid down by
Article 368 and was thus done in a manner not known to law, the said
entire proceedings of the 1st respondent had no legal sanctity
whatsoever since there had to be the requisite amendment of the
Constitution of India as laid down by Article 368 as held by this
Honourable Court in the Berubary Union and Exchange of Cooch-
Behar Enclaves on 01.04.1959 which was asine qua non.
v) Though the alteration of the boundaries of the state of Jammu and
Kashmir as depicted in the new map of Kashmir was pursuant to a 17
para Memorandum dated 1 July 1954 issued by the 1st respondent
herein, forinter alia the purported reason that the frontier should be
considered a firm and definite one, which is not open to discussion
with any one. A system of check posts should be spread along this
entire frontier. More especially, we should have check posts in such
places as might be considered disputed areas and though the said
Memorandum specifically mentioned Demchok, the Chinese have
encroached inter alia at Demchok on numerous occasions and stopped
essential amenities like road construction and sheds which the local
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
5/24
5
inhabitants had been craving for and the human rights of these citizens
of India have been violated, but the 1st respondent has all but justified
the encroachments.
vi) The Petitioner herein caused a legal Notice dated 17.11.2010 to be
issued to the respondents herein enumerating the aforesaid issues but
the 1st respondent has neither given a reply whatsoever nor heeded to
legal notice.
vii) Hence, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011 was filed by the
Petitioner on 07.03.2011.
3. GROUNDS
That the Petitioner seeks review of the Order dated 04.04.2011 on inter alia
the following grounds:
a. The Honourable Court erred passing the order with out at all hearing
the Petitioner in Person.
b. The Honourable Court erred in dismissing the Case by not
pronouncing a speaking order and the same cannot be countenanced
since the basic requirement of recording of reasons introduces clarity,
checks the extraneous and irrelevant considerations and averts
arbitrariness.
c.The Honourable Court erred in dismissing the Case by not
pronouncing a speaking order after hearing all the parties in the Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011 as was done by this Honourable
Court in the Berubary Union and Exchange of Cooch-Behar Enclaves
on 01.04.1959 which was asine qua non.
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
6/24
6
d. The Honourable Court erred in not noting that the Case was of
profound importance and raised very pertinent issues of law and fact
which had a profound bearing on the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of India which had to be upheld and protected and that in
India there was rule of law which principle has been defined by Dicey
as, .with us every official, from Prime Minister down to Constable
or collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act
done without legal justification as any other citizen.., as
propounded in the maxim however high you may be, law is above
you.
e. That this Honble Court did not appreciate that the petition pertained
to the illegal cartographical cession of the territory of India and
alteration of the boundaries by the 1st respondent in 1954 resulting in
the diminution of the territory of India which was done with out the
requisite amendment of the Constitution of India as laid down by
Article 368 as held by this Honourable Court in the Berubary Union
and exchange of Cooch- Behar Enclaves on 01.04.1959, and hence
was per se illegal.
f. The Honourable Court erred in not considering the fact that Article 51
A of the Constitution of India, prescribes that it is the fundamental
duty of the Citizen of India to uphold the territorial integrity and the
sovereignty of India.
g. The Honourable Court erred in not considering the fact that when the
1st respondent had unscrupulously subverted and circumvented the
Constitution of India and illegally altered the boundaries in a manner
not known to law resulting in the illegal diminution of the territory of
India, the same was per se Illegal and absolutely had no legal sanctity
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
7/24
7
whatsoever and would continue to be ab initio illegal, null and void
and non est indefinitely forever since the Constitution of India had
not been amended and the Entry 15 to the First Schedule of the
Constitution was affected and the same has not been amended, and the
lapse of time in approaching this Honourable Court, how ever long it
may be was totally and absolutely irrelevant and the filing of the
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011 was inevitable and was only
waiting to happen since in India the Constitution of India was
sacrosanct and supreme and the 1st respondent should not be
permitted to achieve a fait accompli and successfully subvert and
undermine the Constitution of India which was supreme and
sacrosanct.
h. The Honourable Court erred in not noting that in a Similar Writ
Petition pending in the file of this Honourable Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 561 of 2008, which also pertained to the same issue of the
illegal cession of the territory of India resulting in the diminution of
the territory of India, the preliminary issue of the purported delay of
34 years in filing the PIL and why the Petitioner woke up after 34
years and whether the petition was maintainable now after a long
lapse of time" was raised but never the less the said Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 561 of 2008 was not dismissed in limine and notice to the
respondent was issued and the said Writ Petition (Civil) No. 561 of
2008 is still pending and hence, this Honourable Court was bound to
apply the same yardstick and ought to be consistent and it did not
behove the honourable apex court of India to be inconsistent and
apply different yardstick to similar cases.
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
8/24
8
i. The Honourable Court did not appreciate the fact that this honourable
Court, having not in limine dismissed a similar case in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 561 of 2008 on the ground of purported delay in filing
and lapse of time, would take a contradictory and inconsistent stance
if Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011 were dismissed and the same
would result in applying different yardsticks in similar cases which
would result in patent discrimination and inter alia violation of Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
j. The Honourable Court ought to have stated in a clear unambiguous
manner, and laid down the law in so many words, if it were indeed
the view of this Honourable Court that even if the initial cession of
the territory of India resulting in the diminution of the territory of
India was done with out the prerequisite amendment of the
Constitution of India as laid down by Article 368 was illegal, the same
would attain legitimacy and sanctity due to efflux of time since the
issue had not been challenged and there was a long lapse of time till
Writ petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011 was filed in this Honourable
Court.
k. The Honourable Court ought to consider the fact that if it were the
view of this Honourable Court and if this Honourable Court gave a
finding that not withstanding the fact that the initial cession of the
territory of India resulting in the diminution of the territory of India
was done with out the prerequisite amendment of the Constitution of
India as laid down by Article 368 was illegal, the same would attain
legitimacy and sanctity due to efflux of time since the issue had not
been challenged due to the long lapse of time, whether the said ruling
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
9/24
9
would result in the subversion of the Constitution of India which was
supreme and sacrosanct.
l. That this Honble Court did not appreciate that after a perusal of the
Petition in Writ petition (Civil ) No. 127 of 2011 that the pertinent
issues pertaining to questions of law and fact which are now very
much in the public domain and the issue has been of late hot in the
political domain.
m. The Honourable Court ought to have noted that the violation of the
fundamental rights of the Citizens of India narrated in the aforesaid
Writ petition (Civil ) No. 127 of 2011 was a direct and inevitable
result of the initial illegal cartographical ceding of the territory of
India resulting in the illegal diminution of the territory of India by the
1st respondent.
n. The Honourable Court ought to have noted that there was a vicious
circle which emanated from the initial ab initio illegal cartographical
ceding of the territory of India and the publication of the spurious new
map of Kashmir in 1953 resulting in the alteration of the boundaries
of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the diminution of the
territorial extent of India and now the new ab initio illegal map of
Kashmir was being used by the first respondent as the basis of the so-
called border talks being held with the Chinese in a position of
subservience, which was thus ipso facto illegal and further threatened
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India and the nefarious
conduct of the 1st respondent had to be nipped in the bud.
o. The Honourable Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the
Petition filed in Writ petition (Civil ) No. 127 of 2011 was a
wonderful and marvelous opportunity for this honourable court to
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
10/24
10
redress the wrong and undo the harm done to this nation by the 1st
respondent and by not seizing the opportunity, this honourable court
had abdicated its responsibilities of upholding and protecting the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country.
p. The Honourable Court ought to have noted that the 1st respondent had
illegally altered the boundaries of the State of Jammu and Kashmir
and had depicted a new map of Kashmir in 1953 which illegally did
not depict vast areas which had earlier been depicted as an integral
part of Kashmir in the official maps attached to the 2 White Papers
published in July 1948 and February 1950 by the Government of
India's Ministry of States, headed, incidentally by Sardar Vallabhbhai
Patel, under the authority of India's Surveyor General G.F. Heaney
which bind it in law, and which ceased to depict the boundary of the
State of Jammu and Kashmir with what was then the Soviet Union
and now the Territory of Gorno Badakhshan now administered by
Tajikistan.
q. The Honourable Court did not appreciate the fact that vast areas
which had been included within the territory of Kashmir in The
Gazetteer of Kashmr and Ladk compiled under the direction of the
Quarter Master General in India in the Intelligence Branch and first
Published in 1890 were overnight illegally depicted as not part of the
State by the aforesaid illegal and unscrupulous act of the 1st
respondent.
r. The Honourable Court did not appreciate the fact that the Princely
state of Kashmir at the time of her accession to the new Dominion of
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
11/24
11
India on 26.10.1947 had a de jure border with what was then the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and this irrefutable fact is borne
out by records viz. the telegram of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru dated 26
October, 1947 to the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, wherein
he reiterates and in no uncertain terms says, "Kashmir's Northern
frontiers, as you are aware, run in common with those of three
countries, Afghanistan, `the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' and
`China' ", as well as the correspondence of Maharaja Hari Singh of
Kashmir with Lord Mountbatten of Burma dated October 26, 1947
wherein he states, Besides, my State has a common boundary with
the Soviet Republic and China, both of which are crucial legal
documents pertaining to the territorial extent of the State of Jammu &
Kashmir, and the fact that the 1st respondent in the year 1954 depicted
a new map of Kashmr which altered the boundaries of the state in
such a manner that the state was illegally depicted as not having a
border with the Soviet Union resulting in the diminution in the
territory of India was sufficient enough to even allow the Writ Petition
in limine as prayed for.
s. That this Honble Court did not appreciate that in the case of the State
of Jammu and Kashmir, besides the Entry 15 in the First Schedule of
the Constitution of India which reads, The territory which
immediately before the commencement of this Constitution was
comprised in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, the said state
had her own constitution wherein Section (4) of the Constitution of
Jammu and Kashmir unequivocally states, The territory of the State
shall comprise all the territories which on the fifteenth day of August,
http://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20010105/iin05014.htmlhttp://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htmhttp://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20010105/iin05014.htmlhttp://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/coifiles/part.htm -
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
12/24
12
1947, were under the sovereignty or suzerainty of the Ruler of the
State".
t. That this Honble Court did not appreciate that insofar as the State of
Jammu and Kashmir was concerned, the power of the Union
Parliament to dispose of the territory of the state in consequence of an
international agreement or treaty, under Article 253 is also limited in
regard to Kashmir . No Bill effecting the disposition of the State of
Jammu and Kashmir is valid unless passed with the previous consent
of the State Government. And indeed in the words of Professor
Gledhill, the treaty making power cannot be used to do what the
Constitution otherwise forbids .1
u. That this Honble Court did not appreciate that the power of the Union
Parliament under Article 3 of the Constitution of India to alter the
name , area and boundaries of the state has been subjected to a
limitation by virtue of a proviso to the article. The Proviso reads as:
Provided further that no bill providing for increasing or
diminishing the area of the state of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or
boundary of that state shall be introduced in the parliament without the consent
of the legislature of that state2.
4. QUESTIONSOF LAW:
That the Petitioner seeks review of the above said order because following
questions of law of profound importance having wide ramification arise out
of this case, which need to be decided by this Hon'ble Court was not
considered. Those questions of law inter alia are:
1The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir by Justice Adarsh Sein Anand, 6th Edn. 2010 Published by Universal Law Publishing Co.Pvt Ltd. C-FF-1A, Dilkhush Industrial Estate, Delhi 110033.2 Constitution(Application to Jammu and Kashmir)Order , 1954;C.O.48, section2(2)
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
13/24
13
a. What are the consequences of the clandestine and surreptitious
alteration of the boundaries of the State of Jammu and Kashmir
whereby vast areas of the state which had hitherto been depicted as
integral part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the maps annexed
to the 2 White Papers published in July 1948 and February 1950 by
the Government of India's Ministry of States, headed, incidentally by
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, under the authority of India's Surveyor
General G.F. Heaney which bind it in law, were not depicted as part
of the said state resulting in the diminution of the territory of India ?
b. Whether the fact that the people of the Nation had not questioned or
challenged the initial Illegal act of the first respondent of altering the
boundaries of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and cartographical
cession of territory of the state in 1953 resulting in the diminution of
the territory of India with out following the procedure known to law,
since they were oblivious and ignorant and also because the whole
act of the first respondent was done in a stealthy manner and was
clandestine and surreptitious, and hence the first respondent could get
away with it all these years till the filing of this Writ petition (Civil )
No. 127 of 2011 by the Petitioner herein, conferred legitimacy and
sanctity to the said illegal act of the first respondent?
c. Whether it was the view of this Honourable Court that even if
admittedly the initial cession of the territory of India and the
alteration of the boundaries of the state of Jammu and Kashmir
resulting in the diminution of the territory of India in 1953 was done
with out the prerequisite amendment of the Constitution of India as
laid down by Article 368 and was thus ipso factoab initio illegal, the
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
14/24
14
same would attain legitimacy and sanctity due to efflux of time since
the issue had not been challenged and there was a long lapse of time?
d. Whether the fact that the Constitution of India was sacrosanct and
supreme has lost its relevance in the changed circumstances, given the
fact that the aforesaid illegal act of the 1 st respondent had not been
questioned or challenged all these years and there was a long lapse of
time and hence, was it the View of this Honourable Court that the 1st
respondent could be permitted to achieve a fait accompli and
successfully subvert and undermine the Constitution of India which
henceforth shall cease to be supreme and sacrosanct?
5. That the petitioner has not filed any other petition of Review earlier before this
Honble Court against the final order and judgment dated 04.04.2011 passed by
this Honble Court in W.P. (Civil) No. 127 of 2011.
PRAYER
Therefore in light of these submissions and the in light of question of law raised in
the Petition it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court be graciously
pleased to:
i. Review its order dated 04.04.2011 passed in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 127 of 2011 and
ii. Pass such other or further order as this Honble Court may deed fit
or proper in the interest of Justice.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL EVER PRAY
New Delhi
Drawn on: 17.04.2011 Petitioner in Person
Filed on: 27.04.2011
Drawn by: P.V. Ravi Chandran, Advocate
Petitioner in Person
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
15/24
15
INDEX
Sl. No. PARTICULARS PAGE
NO.
1 Office Report on Limitation A2 Synopsis and List of Dates
3 Impugned order dated 04.04.2011 passed by this Honble
Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011
4 Review Petition with Affidavit
5 Annexure A: Extract of the map of India annexed to the 2
White Papers published in July 1948 and February 1950 by
the Government of India's Ministry of States, headed,
incidentally by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, under the authority
of India's Surveyor General G.F. Heaney which bind it in
law.
IN THE SUPRME COURT OF INDIA
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1579 of 2011
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
16/24
16
Petition seeking Review of Order dated 04.04.2011 passed by this Honble Court
in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011.
IN THE MATTER OF:
P.V.Ravi Chandran
Advocate,
5, Divya Krupa,
1st Street Extn.
Sri Krishna Nagar,
Maduravayal,
Chennai 600095 . Petitioner
AND
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Department of Home Affairs,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
Nav Dehli 110001.
2. The State of Jammu and Kashmir
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Department of Home,
Secretariat,
Srinagar 190009,
Jammu and Kashmir
3. The Surveyor General of India,
Survey of IndiaHathibarkala Estate
Dehra Dun 248001,
Uttara Khand . Respondents
Office Report On Limitation
The Review Petition is within time.
(SECTION OFFICER)
NEW DELHI
DATED: .04.2011
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
17/24
17
That the instant Review Petition(Civil) has been filed by the petitioner being
aggrieved by the final judgment and order dated 04.04.2011 passed by this Honble
Court (Hon'ble THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Honble Mr. Justice K.S.PANICKER
RADHAKRISHNAN, And Hon'ble Mr. Justice SWATANTER KUMAR)
whereby the Honble Supreme Court by its Judgment and order was pleased to
dismiss the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011 filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner raised the issue that new map of Kashmir issued by the 1st
respondent in the year 1954 was per se illegal and ab initio illegal and null and
void inter alia since the 1st respondent had in the year 1954 published the
aforesaid new map of Kashmr which in effect had altered the boundaries of the
state in such a manner that the state was illegally depicted as not having a border
with the Soviet Union and besides, the said map also did not depict vast areas
which had previously been depicted as an integral part of Kashmir in the official
maps attached to the 2 White Papers published in July 1948 and February 1950
pertaining to the period of the commencement of the Constitution of India by the
Government of India's Ministry of States, headed, incidentally by Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel, under the authority of India's Surveyor General G.F. Heaney
which bind it in law, resulting in the diminution in the territory of India.
Besides, inter alia vast areas of the state of Jammu and Kashmir which had been
included within the territory of Kashmir in The Gazetteer of Kashmr and Ladk
compiled under the direction of the Quarter Master General in India in the
Intelligence Branch and first Published in 1890 were overnight illegally depicted as
not part of the State by the aforesaid illegal act of the 1st respondent and since the
same had verily resulted in the cession of the territory of the state of Jammu and
Kashmir resulting in the diminution in the territory of India and since this was
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
18/24
18
done with out amending the Constitution of India as laid down by Article 368 and
was thus done in a manner not known to law, the said entire proceedings of the 1st
respondent had no legal sanctity whatsoever and this Honourable Court had in
Berubary Union and exchange of Cooch- Behar Enclaves held that when there was
cession of the territory of India and alteration of the boundaries by the 1st
respondent resulting in the diminution of the territory of India, there had to be the
requisite amendment of the Constitution of India as laid down by Article 368.
The alteration of the boundaries of the state of Jammu and Kashmir as depicted
in the new map of Kashmir was pursuant to a 17 para Memorandum dated 1 July
1954 issued by the 1st respondent herein, which stated inter alia that the frontier
should be considered a firm and definite one, which is not open to discussion with
any one. A system of check posts should be spread along this entire frontier. More
especially, we should have check posts in such places as might be considered
disputed areas. But in spite of the said purported reason, the Chinese have
encroached and stopped essential amenities like road construction and sheds which
the local inhabitants had been craving for and the human rights of these citizens of
India have been violated, but the 1st respondent has all but justified the
encroachments.
The Petitioner herein caused a legal Notice dated 17.11.2010 to be issued to
the respondents herein enumerating the aforesaid issues but the 1
st
respondent has
neither given a reply whatsoever nor heeded to legal notice.
LIST OF DATES
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
19/24
19
1950 The official maps attached to the 2 White Papers published in July
1948 and February 1950 by the Government of India's Ministry of
States, headed, incidentally, by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, under the
authority of India's Surveyor General G.F. Heaney bind it in law
1.07.1954 A 17 para Memorandum issued by the 1st respondent herein
1954 New map of Kashmir published by the 1st respondent herein which
depicted altered boundaries resulting to cession of territory of India
and the diminution in the territory of India
14.11.196
2
Unanimous resolution of the Parliament of India vowing to recover
every inch of land occupied by China howsoever long or hard the
struggle may be.
November
2009
The 1st Respondent meekly capitulated and succumbed to the arrogant
threats and intimidations of the Chinese army and stopped work on
an 8-km road project being constructed because the local residents i.e.
Citizens of India had been demanding a link to improve road
connectivity and provide employment to local residents, under the
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) in
Demchok, near Rudokh, in near-eastern historic Ladakh after the
Chinese army objected
September
October
2010
The Chinese had once again encroached into the Gombir area near
Demchok in Kashmir and intimidated and threatened the citizens
residing in that part of this country and the Civilian workers who
were constructing a shed which was approved at an estimated cost of
Rs 2 lakh to be built at village Gombir under the Border Area
Development Project of the Ministry of Home Affairs for the utility of
the public, the plan for which was cleared by the state Rural
Development Department, and were successful in preventing the
construction.
17.11.201
0
The Petitioner herein caused a legal Notice to be issued to the
respondents herein
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
20/24
20
07.03.201
1
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011 filed by the petitioner filed in
this Honourable Court.
4.04.2011 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011 dismissed.
ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.127 OF 2011
(For Prel. Hearing)
P.V.RAVI CHANDRAN Petitioner(s)
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
21/24
21
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent(s)
Date: 04/04/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR
For Petitioner(s) In-person
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing petitioner in-person the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard the petitioner, who has appeared in-person.
The writ petition is dismissed.
[ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ]
A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar
IN THE SUPRME COURT OF INDIA
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1579 OF 2011
Petition seeking Review of Order dated 04.04.2011 passed by this Honble Court
in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011.
IN THE MATTER OF:
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
22/24
22
P.V.Ravi Chandran
Advocate,
5, Divya Krupa,
1st Street Extn.
Sri Krishna Nagar,
Maduravayal,
Chennai 600095 . Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Department of Home Affairs,North Block, Central Secretariat,
Nav Dehli 110001.
2. The State of Jammu and Kashmir
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Department of Home,
Secretariat,
Srinagar 190009,
Jammu and Kashmir
3. The Surveyor General of India,
Survey of India
Hathibarkala Estate
Dehra Dun 248001,
Uttara Khand . Respondents
A F F I D A V I T
I, P.V.Ravi Chandran, aged about 44 years, son of Mahadevapandal Soolapani
Warrier , residing at No 5, Divya Krupa, 1st Street Extn., Sri Krishna Nagar,
Maduravayal, Chennai 600095, Tamil Nadu at Present at New Delhi, do hereby
solemnly affirmed as declare as under:
1. That I am the Petitioner in the accompanying Review Petition. I am acquainted
and conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to
swear this affidavit.
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
23/24
23
2. That I have drawn the accompanying Review Petition and hence I have read
and understood the contents of the same. The pages 1-14 of the Paper Book
contents of the Review Petition.
3. That the contents of Para 1-5 of the Review Petition are true as per my
knowledge and legal information received and borne out by records. The
contents of last Para is the prayer to this Hon'ble Court.
DEPONENT
V E R I F I C A T I O N
I, P.V.Ravi Chandran, above named Deponent due hereby verify that the
contents of this Affidavit are true to my knowledge and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this the 27th day of April 2011
DEPONENT
IN THE SUPRME COURT OF INDIA
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1579 OF 2011
Petition seeking Review of Order dated 04.04.2011 passed by this Honble Court
in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2011.
IN THE MATTER OF:
P.V.Ravi Chandran
Advocate,5, Divya Krupa,
-
8/4/2019 Review Petition in Writ Petition (Civil) 127 of 2011
24/24
24
1st Street Extn.
Sri Krishna Nagar,
Maduravayal,
Chennai 600095 . Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Department of Home Affairs,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
Nav Dehli 110001.
2. The State of Jammu and Kashmir
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Department of Home,
Secretariat,
Srinagar 190009,
Jammu and Kashmir
3. The Surveyor General of India,
Survey of India
Hathibarkala Estate
Dehra Dun 248001,
Uttara Khand . Respondents
PAPER BOOK
FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON