[Attachment(s) from Amitabh Thakur included below]
PIL against Sahara Credit Cooperative Society to be heard by High Court
The PIL filed by me and Nutan about the alleged impropriety of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited shall be heard by the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court along with the Review petition filed in this regards.
The PIL says that Sahara Credit has been registered as a Cooperative society under the Multi State cooperative Act 2002, which is supposed to work for collective goals by pooling in the resources. But it is collecting public money through schemes like Sahara E shine, Sahara A select, Sahara Minor, Sahara M Benefit and Sahara U Golden, operated through workers of Sahara India, which comes as being a circuitous route for collection of public money, thereby seriously jeopardizing investors' interest.
Hence we had prayed for enquiry into the above facts to ensure the complete compliance of the laws prescribed for collection of public money.
Heard Sri Amitabh Thakur, petitioner no.1 and Dr. Nutan Thakur, petitioner no.2 in person.
After hearing the arguments at some length, when the Court required the petitioner no.1 to answer certain queries on the issue as to how does he substantiate his submission that the schemes quoted in annexure no.1 to the writ petition are being run by respondent no.6, Sri Amitabh Thakur submitted that the perspective of the Court, vis-a-vis annexure no.1 and the schemes quoted therein, are different than his perspective.
On the aforesaid submission made, the Court specifically told Sri. Amitabh Thakur, petitioner no.1 that he is arguing the matter before a Court of law and that the Court is not supposed to enter into or entertain any kind of debate and further that when a person approaches the Court he has to substantiate his assertions and arguments. At this observation of the Court, Sri. Amitabh Thakur appeared dissatisfied and stated that he did not want to argue this matter any further.
Thereafter, when the Court required the petitioner no.2 to answer the queries, she also submitted that once the petitioner no.1 does not intend to argue the case before the Court, she also does not intend to do so.
In these circumstances, the Court is left with no option but to dismiss the petition.
Thus, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
After passing the order, Sri. Amitabh Thakur, petitioner no.1 further submitted that what he intended to convey to the Court was that he did not want to argue the matter before this particular Bench.
We may, at this juncture, only state that Benches in the High Court exercise their jurisdiction as per roster assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The instant petition has been filed in the shape of Public Interest Litigation. As per roster determined by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, this Bench has been assigned the said jurisdiction. Further, no person who is a party to a proceeding before this Court can be permitted to argue cases before a Bench of his choice.
Accordingly, the aforesaid submission made by Sri. Amitabh Thakur, petitioner no.1 is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 10.3.2014/Shahnaz
The PIL filed by me and Nutan about the alleged impropriety of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited shall be heard by the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court along with the Review petition filed in this regards.
The PIL says that Sahara Credit has been registered as a Cooperative society under the Multi State cooperative Act 2002, which is supposed to work for collective goals by pooling in the resources. But it is collecting public money through schemes like Sahara E shine, Sahara A select, Sahara Minor, Sahara M Benefit and Sahara U Golden, operated through workers of Sahara India, which comes as being a circuitous route for collection of public money, thereby seriously jeopardizing investors' interest.
Hence we had prayed for enquiry into the above facts to ensure the complete compliance of the laws prescribed for collection of public money.
The PIL was previously dismissed by the Court on grounds of us saying that we would not argue the matter before the given bench but today the bench consisting of Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza and Justice D K Upadhyaya agreed to hear the matter along with the Review petition after we tendered unconditional apology and stated that we shall be presenting all the facts before the Court in this matter of great public interest.
Friends are requested to provide any further information in this matter of larger public interest.
Friends are requested to provide any further information in this matter of larger public interest.
Enclosed- 1. Previous order of the High Court
2. Copy of PIL, review petition
Amitabh Thakur
# 094155-34526
# 094155-34526
Order of High Court----
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2008 of 2014
Petitioner :- Amitabh Thakur & Another [P.I.L.]
Respondent :- Union Of India Thr.Secy.Agriculture & Cooperation Deptt.&Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amitabh Thakur (Inperson),Dr.Nutan Thakur (Inperson
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.
Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
?Court No. - 2
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2008 of 2014
Petitioner :- Amitabh Thakur & Another [P.I.L.]
Respondent :- Union Of India Thr.Secy.Agriculture & Cooperation Deptt.&Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amitabh Thakur (Inperson),Dr.Nutan Thakur (Inperson
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.
Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Heard Sri Amitabh Thakur, petitioner no.1 and Dr. Nutan Thakur, petitioner no.2 in person.
After hearing the arguments at some length, when the Court required the petitioner no.1 to answer certain queries on the issue as to how does he substantiate his submission that the schemes quoted in annexure no.1 to the writ petition are being run by respondent no.6, Sri Amitabh Thakur submitted that the perspective of the Court, vis-a-vis annexure no.1 and the schemes quoted therein, are different than his perspective.
On the aforesaid submission made, the Court specifically told Sri. Amitabh Thakur, petitioner no.1 that he is arguing the matter before a Court of law and that the Court is not supposed to enter into or entertain any kind of debate and further that when a person approaches the Court he has to substantiate his assertions and arguments. At this observation of the Court, Sri. Amitabh Thakur appeared dissatisfied and stated that he did not want to argue this matter any further.
Thereafter, when the Court required the petitioner no.2 to answer the queries, she also submitted that once the petitioner no.1 does not intend to argue the case before the Court, she also does not intend to do so.
In these circumstances, the Court is left with no option but to dismiss the petition.
Thus, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
After passing the order, Sri. Amitabh Thakur, petitioner no.1 further submitted that what he intended to convey to the Court was that he did not want to argue the matter before this particular Bench.
We may, at this juncture, only state that Benches in the High Court exercise their jurisdiction as per roster assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The instant petition has been filed in the shape of Public Interest Litigation. As per roster determined by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, this Bench has been assigned the said jurisdiction. Further, no person who is a party to a proceeding before this Court can be permitted to argue cases before a Bench of his choice.
Accordingly, the aforesaid submission made by Sri. Amitabh Thakur, petitioner no.1 is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 10.3.2014/Shahnaz
__._,_.___
Attachment(s) from Amitabh Thakur | View attachments on the web
1 of 1 File(s)
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment