Legal advice about "Letter Petitions" to the CJI/SC for enforcement of Fundamental Rights guarnteed by Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution under Article 32 (Grievance Management) before Supreme Court - Information and procedure for submission and action ?
Please inform about this Grievance Management system operational for registering of complaints before SC. I had filed a complaint regarding 'Concealment of vital facts' and 'Misleading the Court by submitting false and incorrect facts' ( A judgment delivered by CAT-Allahabad deciding 'Eligibility criteria and rejecting Common Seniority in violation of SRO 4/56 by Respondents'. This judgment attained finality as Respondents never assailed the judgment order before High Court/ SC for annulling the 'Ratio decidendi' ( TA 1444/1986, judgment delivered on 05/01/1987). Respondents had submitted under oath that petitioners belonged to 'Production classification' in Engineer cadre but but submitted under oath before Apex Court that petitioner belongs to 'Mechanical' thus committed 'Perjury' ( Contempt Petition No. 100/2009 in CA 4862/2007 arising out of SC judgment in SLP/CA 2322/91 decided by SC on 05/08/1993 dismissing Respondents' Appeal with costs contested in CAT-Calcutta (TA No. 1069/86) date of judgment 09-07-1990. Will some Advocate member provide me the required information and advice! Diary No. Of Complaint is 24110/SCI/PIL(E)/2018, present status is 'Under Process' since 21-05-2018. more
My letter petition under Article 32 was addressed to Hon'ble CJI for protection of my fundamental rights(Art. 14, 19 & 21). Registry diaries it as 24110/SCI/PIL(E)/2018 on 21/05/2018. Respondents submitted false facts and concealed a judgment in TA 1444/86 delivered by CAT-Allahabad on 05/01/1987 thus decieved the Court to believe that they have implemented orders as per rules while defending contempt charges in Contempt petition No.100/2009 in CA 4862/2007, SLP 2322/91 in TA1069/86 decided by CAT-Calcutta on 09-07-1990 directing respondents to implement order withing 90 days. Respondents arbitrarily delayed implementation through repeated litigations by more than 27 years and partial implementation was in violation of statutory rules. more