REMINDER FOR ACTION AGAINST CITY MAMLATDAR May 20, 2008
Posted by mody in SWAGAT-COLLECTOR -FEBRUARY.trackback
| from |  |
pankaj mody <modyps@gmail.com> | hide details | May 20 | ||||
| to |  |
“COLLECTOR,AHMEDABAD” <collector-ahd@gujarat.gov.in> | ||||||
| date | May 20, 2008 6:55 PM | |||||||
| subject | subject:- who is conducting the inquiry on City Mamlatdar Mamta Sojitra and copy of reply filed by her Fwd: SOS MESSAGE FOR MOST URGENT ATTENTION :- COMPLAINT AGAINST CITY MAMLATDAR PURSUANT TO QUESTION 47 AND 48 RAISED IN FEBRUARY SCHEME OF SWAGAT B | |||||||
| mailed-by | gmail.com | |||||||
|
FROM PANKAJ S MODY
2ND FLOOR JANMANGAL APT
40 BRAHMAN MITRA MANDAL SOC
PALDI , AHMEDABAD 380 006
EMAIL modyps@gmail.com
20th May 2008
The Collector of Ahmedabad
Respected Sir,
In the swagat programme held in March 2008 by the then Collector Shri Diwedi , I was informed by him during the meeting
that my complaint against city mamlatda mamta sojitra is being taken on record and the necessary inquiry against her
is being set in motion.
Please furnish the particulars of action taken against her and copy of the reply given by her in defense to the
body holding inquiry against her .
Kindly accord top priority as two months have lapsed from the date of my complaint against her .
Please treat this matter as most urgent . I look forward to your reply preferably by tomorrow itself.
As I am affected my party I have right to know the details .
It goes without saying that she is not fit to be a city mamlatdar at all.
Thanking you
yours most respectfully
pankaj s mody
It appears that
———- Forwarded message ———-
NOTE:- I AM SENDING COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14-3-08 HAND DELIVERED TO THE COLLECTOR OFFICE ON 14-3-08. THE RECTIFICATION OF TEXT OF THE LETTER HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT HERE IN THE PRESENT EMAIL . THE EMAIL DOES NOT HAVE THE ANNEXURES ATTACHED IN THE EMAIL From:- Pankaj S Mody 2nd Floor, Janmangal Apt 40 Brahman Mitra Mandal Soc Paldi , Ahmedabad 380 006 Email modyps@gmail.com Dated:- 14-3-2008 To The Collector of Ahmedabad- For attention of Shri D. Diwedi Collector’s Office Shubash Bridge Ahmedabad Respected Sir, Subject:- Charges of Misconduct of CITY MAMLATDAR in Takrari Nodh Proceedings 74/07 relating to Final Plot 768/10, TP Scheme 3/5 varied, situated on C G Road , Ahmedabad in relation to Question 47 and 48 in SWAGAT MEETING ON 28-2-2008. and letter dated 28-2-08 submitted during the meeting ————————————– 1. I refer to my attendance upon your good self on 28-2-2008 wherein you requested me to reaffirm reformate the misconduct charges against City Mamlatdar which I am setting down herein below. I am also replying to several points replied by the City Mamlatdar on 27-2-2008 VIDE SCHEDULE “PSM-A” annexed herewith and I am totally dissatisfied by her irresponsible and casual and indifferent reply . I am also bringing to you that the City Mamlatdar has evaded to give detailed findings referred under nine paragraphs as referred in my letter dated 26-2-2008 pertaining to the objection letter dated 30-5-2007. I am also referring to her misconduct against her in following paragraphs . I am also enclosing necessary documents herewith for your kind attention and referred at the end of this petition letter. 2. The City Mamlatdar received in 2007 ( dates unknown to me) in takrari nodh 407 pages. The details are as under :- · From Harekrishna Developers – 256 pages ( page no 9-37, 119-175, 181-337,347-355) · From Talati/Circle Officer -34 pages in total ,(Page no 1 to 7, 39, 55, 57, 115, 391-407) . · Pankaj Mody – 117 pages in total ( 41-53, 59-113, 117, 177-179, 339. 341-345, 357-389 ) As per the records of Takrari Nodh records, I provided to Talati as well as City Mamlatdar/Talati’s office – about 117 pages of documents (strangely did not include letter dated 25-1-2006, 6-2-2007, 13-2-07,20-4-07, 16-5-07). For sake of reference , I am once again annexing copy of letter dated 25-1-2006 relating to registration of Lis Pendens document pertaining to Civil Suit 5827/2001 pending in Bhadra City Civil Court relating to the Final Plot 768/10. I am once again also annexing reply dated 13-2-2007 from the Circle Inspector ( Javak No 39/07). 3. The City Mamlatdar failed to ensure that I should receive copy of all the documents received by her from Harekrishna Developers and talati’s office namely 290 pages to enable me to consider the same and put up my stand interalia thereto. The City Mamlatdar on 29 September 2007 forwarded to my advocate Ms. Meena Vyas enclosures received by her from Harekrishna Developers totaling about 60 pages. On the same day, Harekrishna Developers also forwarded one more set being copy of said of about 60 pages vide their letter 29-9-07 ( Page no 347 of takrari nodh records) to Advocate Ms Meena Vyas. It seems that both Harekrishna Developers and the City Mamlatdar were working in tandem. Prior to 29-9-2007, the City Mamlatdar knew that she had not forwarded any documents to me. On 4-9-07 by my then Advocate (Ms Meena Vyas) had received vakilatnama and on 11-9-07 had requested copy of all documents requested received by the City Mamlatdar from Harekrihsna Developers .On 18-9-07 my lawyer requested for all such documents received from HAREKRISHNA DEVELOPERS and my lawyer informed that she would require 15 days from receipt of copy of each of Harekrishna Developers’ documents submitted by to City Mamlatdar. 4. I had no knowledge till November 7, 2007 that City Mmamlatdar had received altogether 407 pages of documents, which she considered in finalizing her Order dated 9th October 2007. Apart from about 60 pages received by me on 29-9-2007 by my lawyer Meena Vyas , neither I nor my lawyer had any knowledge of balance documents thereby seriously prejudicing me in presenting of my case to her. My then Lawyer and I had prepared Written Submissions on 9-10-07 based on 60 pages of documents received by her on 29-9-07 from City Mamlatdar and Harekrihsna Developers. The City Mamlatdar failed to ensure that I or my lawyer received that I or my said lawyer received additional 290 pages of documents prior to 9th october 2007. 5. The City Mamlatdar gravely mis conducted herself:- (a) On 3/10/2007 Mr. Deepak Vyas ( Advocate assistant of my lawyer) had handed over copy of Judgment of Honorable Justice Jayant Patel to City Mamlatdar ( Deepakbahi Manilal Patel against State of Gujarat) regarding directions to Mamlatdar for registering of Lis Pendens which I humbly submit the City Mamlatdar was obliged to follow being an inferior tribunal to Gujarat High Court. The City Mamlatdar did not comply with the said directions and failed to direct talati to register my Suit’s Lis Pendens. In her order dated 9-10-2007 , the City Mamlatdar has deliberately and wrongfully asserted at page 2 of her said Order ( first line of the said order) that “I had filed said SCA 16255/2006 ” which assertion was wholly baseless and untruthful. The City Mamlatdar ought to have known from the judgment of Honorable Justice Jayant Patel that I was not party to said proceedings and yet in her Order she has asserted and wrongfully concluded that I had lost SCA 16255/06. 6. No hearing date were given and no hearing took place before the said City Mamlatdar which is in violation of rules of natural justice and also amounts to Serious misconduct. The City Mamlatdar issued her Order on 9-10-2007 without any hearing and thereby prevented me and my lawyer to assert my stand and various legal and technical points and prevented cross examination of Harekrishna Developers and others who had submitted the afore stated 290 pages of documents. 7. The City Mamlatdar knew that being an inferior tribunal she has to comply with the judgment of supreme higher court, namely of Gujarat High Court in the said SCA 16255/2006. She deliberately and wrongfully evaded compliance of the same by deliberately misstating following wrongful facts in her order dated 9-10-2007:- · (i) That I had lost Civil Suit 5827/2001 in Bhadra City Civil Court. · (ii) Thereafter I appealed there from to Gujarat High Court which came for alleged hearing before two Judges and which I lost on 30-11-2006. · (iii) That Special Civil Application 16255/2006 was filed by me in Gujarat High Court and I had lost. NOTE :- None of the above three conclusions are truthful and no such evidence was ever given by me or by my two lawyers to the City Mamlatdar. 8. The City Mamlatdar failed to obtain from Harekrishna Developers or from the their lawyers A C Damani in support of their assertion (that I had lost my Civil Suit 5827/2001). I submit that she should have obtained appropriate Certificate from City Civil Court as regards alleged dismissal of my said Civil suit 5827/2001. All along I and my lawyers had informed the said City Mamlatdar and talati office right from January 2006 that my said Civil Suit 5827 of 2001 is pending in Bhadra City Civil Court and the same is subjudice. 9. The City Mamlatdar further gravely mis conducted herself in not preparing the following :- i. Index of documents consisting of page 1 to 407 referred to by her at last page of 9th October 2007. ii. Having discussions with Hare Krishna Developers and their lawyers unknown to me and my lawyers and in my lawyers’ and my absence. iii. Written records of all the discussions and meeting that took place between City Mamlatdar and Harekrishna Developers and /or their Lawyer (A C Damani) wherein City Mamlatdar was acting in judicial capacity. 10. Most of the documents tendered to Talati’s Office and City Mamlatdar by (Harekrishna Developers and others) requires authenticiation and the maker thereof to be crossexamined as the said documents are in contravention of various laws like Indian Evidence Act , Indian Registration Act, Indian Stamp Act, Transfer of Property Act, Bombay Revenue Code as applied to Gujarat etc. The City Mamlatdar should have looked into these documents before accepting the same. 11. Over and above her gross misconduct as referred above, I am narrating finer and additional misconduct of City Mamlatdar as under:- (a) Not granting Adjournment and hearing in the matter:- As per page No 347 ,Harekrishna Developers gave papers on 29-9-2007 to my advocate Ms. Meena Vyas and hence sufficient adjournment ought to have been given on 3-10-2007 on application made by my advocate. The City Mamlatdar arbitrarily decided not to give adjournment while orally stating that she would accept written submissions provided that the written submissions are submitted in next 8 to 10 days. The City Mamlatdar refused to give any fresh hearing at all. This shows that I am being purposely deprived of a hearing which is against principles of natural justice with a deliberate intention of causing me undue hardships , litigations and expense to extend undue favour to Harekrishna Developers so that they can carry on the construction activity. In reply dated 27-2-08 , the City Mamlatdar has given reply to Paragraph that the authorities did not have necessary details so as to register the Lis Pendens document The City Mamlatdar ought to be aware of the letter dated 25-1-2006 addressed to Circle Inspector and City Mamlatdar wherein necessary details have been given as regards to the document of Lis Pendens registered regarding the property with Sub Registrar’s office as regarding pending Civil suit in the referred disputed property. Once this fact was known to the authorities , it was the duty of City Mamaltdar to take on record Notice of Lis Pendens. (b) The City Mamlatdar has taken written submissions dated 9th October 2007 on record of takrari nodh but has not bothered to seek written clarifications from Harekrishna Developers in this regard which primae facie indicates that the City Mamlatdar had already decided in advance that she wants to pass order in favour of Harekrishna Developers and has taken care that no remarks are made in her Order dated 9th October 2007 as regards to my written submissions dated 9th October 2007 (submitted by me) so that such written submissions does not get observed later by higher authorities.All this clearly suggest that the City Mamlatdar was in collusion with Harekrishna Developers. (c) The City Mamlatdar has managed to inform about the Order dated 9th October 2007 to Harekrishna Developers prior to noon time of October 10th 2007 (As Advocate A C Damani filed caveat on 10th October 2007 for Harekrishna Developers), while I was served the Order by Post on 7th November 2007.This once again clearly points favor to Harekrishna Developers and clearly showing collusion with Harekrishna Developers. (d) The City Mamlatdar has taken on record my written statement dated 9th October 2007 (vide pages 357 to 389 ) and thereafter has also taken on record further documents ( vide pages 391-407 )without bringing the same to my notice. The City Mamlatdar office kept me in dark about vital documents received from Harekrishna Developers as well as other documents received such as page 349 ( entry 6027) , 351 , 353 ,355 which primae facie shows lack of transparency with a deliberate attempt to extend undue favour to Harekrishna Developers. The City Mamlatdar has also further taken on records various pages 391 to 407 while keeping me in dark. This is unfair as well as against Principles of natural justice. (e) It has been stated by City Mamlatdar that on 3rd Page of the Order dated 9th October 2007 , that Harekrishna Developers has presented to City Mamlatdar copy of registered release deed of charge. I am shocked that I was not informed about the same on 3rd October 2007 and I was not given an opportunity of being heard and this was done behind my back to extend undue favour to Harekrishna Developers. (f) It has been stated in the order dated 9th October 2007 that the only document of Civil Suit 5827 of 2001 that has been taken on record as submitted by Harekrishna Developers is the one relating to the Order passed on 25-11-2002. The City Mamlatdar has relied on this Order and going by the contents of the said Order dated 25-11-2002, it is clear that the said order was passed in my favor. (g) In view of objections raised by me,it was the duty of the City Mamlatdar to probe the entry 5512 regarding Span Medicals Ltd and also all the documents for creating charge on the property and also all the documents pertaining to lifting of the stay .It was duty of the City Mamlatdar to conduct thorough investigation and offer me an opportunity of cross examining before the order was passed.This has not been done. (h) The City Mamlatdar wants to shrug off the responsibility of examining the matter minutely and wants to pass on the burden to her superiors to spend their precious time. (i) The City Mamlatdar has not called for detailed explanation for taking entry 5611 on record and therefore the same has not been examined by the City Mamlatdar at all. (j) The City Mamlatdar has failed to give the index of page numbers( 1 to 407) forming part of takrari nodh 74/2007 before pronouncing the order on 9th October 2007 and even now the same has not been made available by the City Mamlatdar. 12. It is needless to state that I as the objector should not be victimized on account of gross misconduct and collusion of City Mamlatdar and therefore I urge you to take all necessary steps so as to avoid multiplicity of legal proceedings. It was necessary for the City Mamlatdar to understand that prevention is better than cure. 13. I am annexing herewith for your attention and attention following documents:- i. Rojpatrak of Pending City Civil Suit 5827/2001. (page 9-23) ii. Copy of letter dated 25-1-06. (page 24) iii. Copy of letter from Circle Inspector dated 13-2-2006. (page 25) iv. Copy of Judgment by Honorable Justice Shri Jayant Patel in SCA 16255 of 2006 on 4-8-2006. ( page 26-28) v. Copy of written submissions on 9th October 2007.(page 29-38) vi. Copy of City Mamlatdar Order dated 9th October 2007. (page 39-41) vii. Copy of sale agreement of disputed property between Span Medicals Ltd and Harekrishna Developers-which is interalia not authentic and requires thorough scrutiny and needs cross examination of the makers (Copy obtained by me from the records office after the receipt of the Order dated 9th October 2007). (page 42-53) viii. Copy of Release deed on 8 th October 2007 stamped on 9th October 2007 and obtained by me from the Records Office subsequently – which is interalia not authentic and requires thorough scrutiny and needs cross examination of the makers ( Copy obtained by me from the records office after receipt of the Order dated 9th October 2007). (page 54-57) ix. Remarks by City Mamlatdar on 27-2-2008 (page 57-61) x. SCEHUDULE A –in response to reply of City Mamlatdar on 27-2-2008 (page 61-65) xi. Copy of Letter DATED 28-2-2008 addressed to your goodself.(page 66-69) 14. In view of my petition , I humbly request you to take all effective steps so as to prevent multiplicity of legal proceedings so that I am not deprived of timely justice on account of misconduct of the City Mamlatdar. 15. I look forward to suitable prompt action in this regard. I look forward to your kind detailed reply in next two to three working days. Thanking you. Yours most respectfully, Pankaj S Mody
|
[...] http://psmody.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/reminder-for-action-against-city-mamlatdar/ [...]