In Allahabad High Court, before Chief Justice bench, my intervention in case against ‘Sahara Q shop’ and ‘Sahara Shahar’ is going on.
I am pleading in-person.
On behalf of Sahara, senior counsel and former speaker of UP assembly Mr. Kesrinath Tripathi is pleading the case.
The next date of the said case is 7th November.
This is the intervention petition.
According to me, Sahara Group is biggest “Scamster” since independence.
It is up-to the Honorable court now to judge and to probe into this serious matter.
Following is the said petition,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. _________OF 2012
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
DISTRICT: GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR
IN THE MATTER OF:
Raju Naresh Parulekar
Aged about 43 years
Son of Shri Naresh Waman Parulekar
1.Union of India
(Through Home Secretary)
Ministry of Home Affairs,
2.Central Bureau of Investigation
3. State of U.P.
through Secretary, Urban Development department
Government of U.P.
Vidhan Sabha Annexe, Lucknow
4. Sahara India
Through Its Chairman
1, Kapurthala Complex
5. Board of Control for Cricket in India
Through Its Secretary
Cricket centre 2nd floor Wankhede Stadium
Churchgate , Mumbai : 400020, India
Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking thorough, independent and impartial probe by Central Bureau of Investigation into the money laundering and illegal grabbing of public land by respondent no. 4.
The Chief Justice of the High Court and his companion Judges
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
- That the Petitioner is a well known writer, journalist, political analyst and blogger and is actively associated with anti-corruption movements in the country.
- The Petitioner has no grudge against any particular person or organization, however, in order to ensure probity in public life, the petitioner approach the courts in the general public interest.
- That the present writ petition is necessitated in view of a nefarious design of respondent no. 4 to defraud the public in general and convert its black money into white.
- That the respondent no. 4 has launched a scheme namely ‘Q shop’ for the promotion of the said scheme, the famous cricket players under the control of respondent no.5 are being used to lure the innocent public. However, the said Q shop is merely an eye wash and an attempt to camouflage the illegal design of respondent no. 4.
- In fact, the petitioner has in his possession internal letters written by Sahara Group Vice Chairman Ms. Swapna Roy, Assistant Director Sanjay Arora and Chief General Manager of Sahara Mr. Sudhir C. Paramar whereby Sahara Group has issued a circular dated 29.9.2012 to all its employees that they have to purchase household requirements from Sahra Q-shops and they have made it mandatory to purchase goods worth Rs. 1,000/- if their salary is below Rs. 25,000/- per month and it has been made mandatory to purchase goods worth Rs. 3,000/- if their salary is more than Rs. 25,000/- per month. It is also provided that the same amount shall be deducted from their salaries. The copies of the letters and the circular dated 29.09.2012 are annexed herewith as Annexure P-1 (colly).
- That under the guise of the alleged deduction, the respondent no. 4 is practicing a money laundering procedure. The respondent no. 4 is actually ensuring, on paper, the infusion of financial resources into its much hyped Q shop which is hardly in existence and on the other hand an amount equivalent to the amount deducted from the salaries of its employees is being reimbursed to the employees in cash. Therefore, a big money laundering procedure has been put in place by respondent no. 4 which does not appear to contravene any law. The same process is also being done by introducing fake customers in the accounts book. Thus, by pulling the wool over the eyes of the enforcement agencies and the general public, the respondent no. 4 with calculated use of the famous faces from respondent no. 5 has undertaken a big money laundering operation in India. The respondent no. 4 has claimed in media that more than Rs. 3000 crores have already been arranged and he expects the figure to reach around 33,000 crores of rupees in one year. Thus, the adverse effect of smart money laundering by respondent no. 4 for the Public exchequer may well be understood.
- That the Sahara Group’s Q-shops are not seen anywhere in the market but in order to prevent negative media reporting arising out of illegal activities of Sahara Group and Q-shops, Sahara is releasing advertisements of hundreds of crores of rupees of non-existent Q-shops to different news channels and print media, a big part of which are misleading advertisements.
- That it is further submitted that a scrutiny of accounts book of respondent no. 4 would reveal that funds being shown as expenses incurred on advertisements are more than 1000 times the alleged sale of goods from such Q-shops.
- That on 27.10.2012, SEBI issued an advertisement in all the leading newspapers which supports the case of the petitioner. According to the advertisement of SEBI, the respondent no. 4 group is forcing the investors to switch over their investments to other schemes like Q shop. A copy of the advertisement dated 27.10.2012 is annexed herewith as Annexure-P2.
- That, therefore, in public interest, it is humbly submitted that this Hon’ble Court may order an independent probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the money laundering procedure adopted by respondent no.4.
- That another instance of illegalities committed by respondent no. 4 is the unauthorized usurpation of public land in connivance with some officials of the respondent no. 3. It is shocking that despite knowledge the respondent no. 3 has not initiated concrete steps to free the public land from the illegal possession of respondent no. 4.
- That a letter dated January 2000 written by Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of U.P. reveals that the transfer deed for 170 acres land between the respondent no. 4 and Nagar Nigam is unenforceable and void and that appropriate steps should be taken to claim the land back. However, nothing appears to have been done by respondent no. 3 because of the influence enjoyed by the respondent no. 4 over the Government machinery. It is learnt that even some crucial documents have been deliberately misplaced by officials to facilitate the respondent no. 4. A copy of the letter dated January 2000 and other letters are annexed herewith as Annexure-P3.
- That the license for 170 acres of land in favour of respondent no. 4 has been purportedly executed on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/- only and according to information available from the file notings, even the original license deed is not available on file and it appears to have been deliberately removed by some unscrupulous person. The copies of some file notings are annexed herewith as Annexure-P4.
- That the Vice Chairman of Lucknow Development Authority passed a detailed order dated 08.11.1999 which contains several findings which are undisputed. Therefore, as a corroborative material to establish the illegal grabbing of land by respondent no. 4, a copy of the order dated 08.11.1999 is annexed herewith as Annexure-P5.
- That both the incidents abovementioned require a thorough inquiry by an independent agency which is not controlled by the State Government and after receipt of the report, this Hon’ble Court may pass appropriate orders as deemed fit in the public interest.
- The Petitioner further submits that he has not filed any other petition for similar reliefs either in this Hon’ble Court or in any other court.
P R A Y E R
It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:-
(a) Order an independent probe by a Special Investigation Team comprising of officers from CBI, SEBI, Enforcement Directorate and Income Tax Department to investigate into the money laundering exercise by respondent no. 4 in the name of Q shop and submit a report to this Hon’ble Court;
(b) Direct the respondent no. 5, not to permit the cricket players to participate in any advertisement or promotion of ‘Q shop’.
(c) Restrain respondent no. 4 Sahara Group from issuing further advertisement promoting Q-shops till the aforesaid enquiry is complete;
(d) Order an independent inquiry into the illegal occupation and possession of land developed as ‘Sahara Sahar’ which was secured by the respondent no. 4 in collusion with the officers of the respondent no. 3
(e) Pass any such order or further order as deemed fit to the facts and circumstances of the case.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
FOR THE APPLICANT.
Filed on: .2012