Pradeep Sharma IAS Supreme Court Affidavit dated 11/04/2014

SUPREME IN THE COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRL. M.P. NO. 24767 OF 2013 IN

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 93 OF 2011

IN THE MATTER OF:

PRADEEP N. SHARMA ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

REJOINDER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 1

I, Pradeep N. Sharma, aged about 58 years, resident of Plot

No. 465/A-2, Sector 1-C, Gandhinagar- 382007, Gujarat do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1. That I am the Petitioner and as such, I am fully competent

to swear and depose this affidavit and fully aware of the

facts and circumstances of the present case.

2. That I have read and understood the contents of the

accompanying Reply Affidavit sworn by the Respondent

No. 1- State of Gujarat and deny the averments and contents thereof as wrong and incorrect, except to the

extent hereinafter specifically admitted. The Petitioner

most humbly seeks to submit this short rejoinder affidavit,

reserving the liberty to file a detailed affidavit if the need

so arises.

3. The reply affidavit filed by Respondent No.1/ State of

Gujarat dated 01.04.2014 through Shri Sanjaykumar S. Pandya, Under Secretary (Law & Order), Government of Gujarat, Home Department (herein after reply affidavit) essentially seeks to raises the following pleas against the Petitioner herein, which are summarized

herein below for the convenience of this Honble Court:-

i) That the order dated 12.05.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Court has not been complied with, and thus

the Petitioner should be held in contempt.

ii) That the Charge Sheets have been filed in the cases whose investigation has been sought to be

transferred from the State Police to the CBI and

therefore, in absence of any demonstration as to

how any prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner, the accompanying petition deserves to

be dismissed.

iii) That the transcripts were posted on two websites- Cobrapost and Gulail (herein after the said websites), and since the said websites

themselves do not vouch for its authenticity, the

application under reply deserves to be rejected.

iv) Petitioner has allegedly concealed the fact that he had filed a Criminal Complaint dated 06.01.2014

before Police Station-Gandhinagar and the rejection of the same by a competent officer dated

13.01.2014.

v) That during the routine intelligence of two mobile numbers in 2009 it was revealed that the Petitioner

herein/Shri P.N. Sharma, IAS was indulging in

suspicious financial transactions, benami properties,

disproportionate assets and illicit relationship with

married women.

vi) That the Lady Architect in question has already given her statement before the Gujarat State Women Commission stating therein that she was

under surveillance at the request of her father and

there is nothing further to be probed by this Hon'ble

Court.

vii) That there are several illegal benefits given to Shri Kuldeep Sharma, IPS, elder brother of the Petitioner

herein.

viii) That the Commission of Enquiry (herein after CoI) has been constituted by the State Government to

probe the said transcripts and thus nothing survived

for this court to adjudicate upon.

4. At the outset, the Petitioner rejects and denies each and every allegation that has been leveled in the reply affidavit

filed by the State Government. The said reply affidavit

only serves to reinforce the averments made by the

Petitioner herein in the Writ petition as well as the instant

Crl MP.

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:

5. The Petitioner endeavors to respond in seriatim to the

various allegations that have been raised in the Reply-

Affidavit in response.

RE: ORDER DATED 12.05.2011 NOT COMPLIED WITH:-

6. It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner has

consistently and constantly stated that there are two

primary reasons for the hostility, malice, malafide and

bias of the State Administration against him, at the behest

of Respondent No. 3/Shri Narendra Modi, which is

reflected and manifested in the FIRs in question, which

FIRs the Petitioner seeks transfer of to the CBI.

7. Firstly, he was being victimized for being the younger

brother of Shri Kuldip Sharma IPS, who was one of the

senior most and most decorated police officers in the

State of Gujarat and who during his tenure as Addl. Director General of Police (Crime) from 28.04.2003 to 01.08.2005 refused to follow the illegal Diktats issued by

the Respondent No. 3 herein/ Shri Narendra Modi through

Shri Amit Shah, the then MoS, Home. The struggles and

sufferings that my elder brother has to undertake and

undergo to maintain the dignity and impartiality of his high

office from machinations and manipulations of the Modi-

Amit Shah duo is well-documented in the Writ Petition

and well-known in the public domain and is not repeated

herein for the sake of brevity. The Respondent No.3/Shri

Narendra Modis intention was to teach a lesson to my

elder brother Shri Kuldip Sharma by causing harm to me.

8. The second and probably the more potent reason, as the

subsequent events have revealed was the apprehension

harbored by the Respondent No. 3/Shri Narendra Modi

that the Petitioner is aware of his illicit liaison/relationship

with the said lady architect (hereinafter lady architect).

9. The said lady architect was introduced to the Respondent

No. 3-Shri Narendra Modi by the Petitioner herein during

his tenure as the District Collector of Bhuj. The Lady

Architect has confided in the Petitioner about the true

nature of her relationship, which developed after the said

introduction with the Respondent no.3/Shri Narendra

Modi. Mr Modi apprehends that the Petitioner herein, in

addition to this information provided by the Lady Architect

herself, would have certain additional information and

documents like CD etc. showing Shri Modi in a

compromising position with the said lady architect.

10. Shri Modi is currently serving his third term as the Chief

Minister of the State of Gujarat. Shri Modi always harbored prime ministerial ambitions. He has carefully

cultivated his public image and persona to achieve his

most cherished personal ambition of occupying the PMs

chair. Naturally, Shri Modi felt that if the information of his

illicit liaison with a much younger lady architect would leak

out in public domain then it would cause a severe blow to

the careful sculpted public image and grievously damage

his chances political ambitions.

11. Consequently, Shri Modi employed the entire might of the

State Administration to victimize, intimidate, terrorize and

persecute the Petitioner herein, including registration of

the baseless said FIRs and the consequent incarceration

of the Petitioner.

12. This took the Petitioner by utter surprise especially when

the Petitioner has never claimed, in public or private, that

he has any access or possession to any such CD or

document that can reveal Shri Modis liaison with the said

lady architect. Though he was personally informed about

this liaison by the lady architect herself, he has always

chosen to maintain a dignified discreet position, as the

Petitioner verily believed and still does believe, that as

mature consenting adults, the nature of the relationship

that Shri Modi has with the said lady architect is entirely

their private matter, over which the Petitioner has locus to

comment. However, Shri Modi embarked on a vindictive

spree against the Petitioner herein and ensured

registration of the patently baseless FIRs send had the

Petitioner thrown in jail, which a view to intimate him.

13. The Petitioner herein, thus was faced with no alternative

and was forced to publicly speak the truth by filing the

accompanying Writ Petitions [WP (Crl) 93/2011 and WP(Crl) 175/2011] seeking relief of transfer of the 5 (five) FIRs registered against the Petitioner from the State

CID/Police to the CBI. The Petitioner was duty bound to

disclose the reasons for seeking such a transfer and the

two reasons as stated supra Shri Kuldip Sharma and the

lady architect-Modi liaison was disclosed.

14. The said writ petition [WP(Crl) No. 93/2011] was listed before this Honble Court on 12.05.2011 wherein the

Respondent No. 1/State of Gujarat as well as the Respondent No. 3/Shri Narendra Modi appeared on

service of notice through their respective Senior Counsels

and Advocate on record.

15. On the very first date of hearing i.e., on 12.05.2011, a

massive hue and cry was raised by the Ld. Senior

Counsels representing the Respondent No. 3-Shri

Narendra Modi and the State of Gujarat about the statements made qua Shri Modi-Lady Architect liaison. In

response to which the Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of

the Petitioner submitted that the main purpose of the

instant Writ Petition is not to wreak any personal vendetta

against Respondent No. 3 or to cast any aspersion on

him but to prima facie demonstrate the malafide harbored

by Respondent No. 3 and the State Government against

the Petitioner which necessitated the transfer of the case

registered against the Petitioner from the State Police to

the CBI. The Petitioner painstakingly made it clear that he

was not associated or affiliated with any political party nor

the instant petition should be seen as a political tool to be

used against Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner was only

interested in securing justice for himself and he is only

concerned with demonstrating that the action of the State

in registering the case against him was malicious and

malafide. The averments made in the instant Petition

were only to the extent of factually justifying the submissions made and the prayers sought therein.

16. That the Petitioner undertook to amend the original

contents of the Writ Petition and a duly amended version

was filed on 06.07.2011 in which the Petitioner has

substantially deleted the detailed averments made

against the Respondent No. 3 and his relationship with

the said lady architect as per the direction of this Honble

Court. However, it is denied that the Petitioner ever

undertook to give up this ground in toto as doing so would

denude the Petitioner of a major ground justifying transfer and render this Writ Petition susceptible for dismissal.

17. It is most respectfully submitted that the Respondent-

State Government has chosen not to act for a period of

almost three years. Only when the instant Crl MP was

filed did along with the said transcripts that the

Respondent/State Govt has raised this new but totally

dubious plea of contempt against the Petitioner for non-

compliance of the order dated 12.05.2011.

18. On the contrary, it is most respectfully submitted that if

any party in this litigation has committed contempt, then it

is the State Govt. When the petitioner filed the instant Writ

Petitions in the year 2011, he had no knowledge of the

telephonic transcripts, which the Petitioner became aware

of only when the CBI annexed them based on the

Statement made by Shri GL Singhal, IPS in the Ishrat

Jahan murder case and which were carried by the said

web sites. These transcripts revealed that the

submissions that were made by the Petitioner in the

original unamended Writ Petition were correct and the

State Govt and Shri Modi, have chosen to mislead this

Honble Court on 12.05.2011.

19. The State Govt in the reply affidavit does not make any

clear unambiguous averment denying the veracity of the

tapes. Shri Modi too interestingly has chosen to remain

silent. He has not filed any affidavit in response to the Crl

MP denying his liaison with the lady architect or denying

the veracity of the transcripts.

20. The said transcripts which clearly reveal commission of

several illegal acts and violations of laws, which the

Petitioner himself was unaware of when he filed the

instant Writ Petitions. The transcripts reveal the illegal

surveillance and unusual high personal interest shown by

Shri Amit Shah into the personal life of the lady architect

at the behest of Saheb (Shri Narendra Modi). These transcripts only prove that there was a justifiable ground for the Petitioner to raise the detailed averments as made

in the original un-amended Writ Petition.

21. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that in the light of

the transcripts that are annexed in the instant Crl. Misc.

Petition, the averments of the State Government that the

order dated 12.05.2011 has not been complied with

deserves to be rejected out rightly.

RE: FILING OF CHARGE SHEETS:-

22. The Petitioner had filed the instant Writ petition praying

for transfer of the 4 FIRs [and WP (Crl) No. 175/2011 for the fifth FIR] that were registered against him by the State Police to an independent and impartial agency i.e., the

CBI. It is submitted that the mere filing of the Charge

Sheet does not preclude this Hon'ble Court from

transferring the said cases to the CBI. The Petitioner has

mentioned and challenged the very basis and contents of

the FIRs and any Charge Sheet or proceedings

consequential thereto are also naturally impugned.

23. In any case, the filing of the Charge sheet does not

prevent or prohibit this Hon'ble Court in any manner from

granting the reliefs as sought for in the instant Writ

Petition, which has been held by this Honble Court in

Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat - (2010) 2 SCC 200 and has been affirmed in Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of Karnataka - (2012) 7 SCC 407 and followed in K.V. Rajendran v. Supt. Of Police - (2013) 12 SCC 480.

RE: WEBSITE COBRAPOST AND GULAIL:-

24. The contention of the State Government is that both the

websites themselves do not affirm the authenticity of the

transcripts and therefore no reliance can be placed upon

the same is misconceived and baseless. It is submitted

that the telephone transcripts were released by the two

websites based on the Charge Sheet that was filed by the

CBI in the infamous Isharat Jahan false murder case. The

said conversations are from the period between August to

September, 2009 and have not been recorded by or at

the behest of the Petitioner herein. In fact the Petitioner

had no knowledge of the same even when the instant writ

petitions were filed and the knowledge of the said

tapping/transcripts was revealed to the Petitioner only

when the CBI filed the same along with Charge Sheet of

Ishrat Jahan murder case..

25. It is submitted that the conversations were recorded by

Shri G.L. Singhal, a senior IPS Officer belonging to the

Gujarat Cadre and pertain to the conversations and the instructions issued by Shri Amit Shah, the then Minister of

State for Home, Government of Gujarat to Shri Singhal. The relevant part of the transcripts/tapping totally

supported the submissions made by the Petitioner in the

instant Writ Petition and a mere disclaimer put by the

website cannot constitute a ground for this Hon'ble Court

to disregard the authenticity of the said transcripts. The

Petitioner verily believes that since the transcripts form

the basis of the Charge Sheet filed by the agency no less

than the CBI, the CBI would have taken adequate steps

to verify its authenticity and correctness. In any case, this

Honble Court is not required to adjudicate on the correctness or the forensic value such transcripts in the

instant proceedings.

RE: COMPLAINT TO POLICE STATION GANDHINAGAR

26. The instant Crl. M.P. was filed by the Petitioner herein on

23.11.2013 praying for taking on record the documents

and transcripts annexed thereto and direct the CBI to

constitute a case for conducting inquiry into the violations

of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and other applicable laws by

Shri Narendra Modi and Shri Amit Shah or any other

person.

27. The Petitioner filed a complaint before the SHO, P.S.

Gandhinagar on 06.01.2014 i.e after filing of the instant

Crl. M.P. Evidently the Petitioner could not have annexed

a copy of the same and there cannot be an accusation of

concealment by any stretch of imagination. The complaint

dated 06.01.2014 was for registration of an FIR and

submission of information in relation to an cognizable

offence, which is the right as well as the duty of the

Petitioner herein and does not in any manner prevent this

Hon'ble Court from adjudicating the instant Crl. Misc. Petition.

RE: ROUTINE INTELLIGENCE EXERCISE ON TWO

MOBILE NUMBERS:-

28. The State Government in its affidavit under reply has

stated that based on certain intelligence inputs in the

year 2009 which revealed certain anti-national activities

were being carried out from several mobile phone

numbers, it was decided to place two mobile numbers

namely xxxxxxxx59 and xxxxxxxx99 of the two private

companies registered in Kutch District of Gujarat, under surveillance. [Pl. see Paragraph 8 of States Reply

Affidavit].

29. That the Reply Affidavit further claims that the procedure

as prescribed under the Telegraph Act, 1885 was

followed in letter and spirit prior to interception of the calls

in these two mobile numbers.

30. That the reply affidavit further states that the intercepted

conversations shockingly reveals that both the numbers

were used by the same person i.e., the Petitioner herein

and the details of the telephone conversation of the two

mobile numbers by the Petitioner reveal shocking facts

which can be broadly clarified/summarized as

hereunder:-

a. Large scale suspicious financial transactions by/at

the behest of the applicant to USA which are being

probed as potential Hawala transactions

b. Amassing of Benami properties by the applicant-

petitioner;

c. Disproportionate assets acquired by the applicant-

petitioner beyond his known source of income;

d. Illicit relationship of the applicant-petitioner with

several married women containing pornographic

and/or obscene conversations with them which include

applicants subordinate officers, wives of relatives etc.

It is clarified that none of the conversations as above

involve the lady whose name is mentioned by the

applicant-petitioner in the memo of petition

maliciously.

31. The present allegations that are leveled against the

Petitioner herein in the said reply affidavit only serves to

reveal the extreme degree of hostility, malice and

malafide that the state administration harbors against the

Petitioner herein at the behest of the Respondent No.

3/Shri Narendra Modi. It is unprecedented for any State

Government to level such allegations, of a personal

nature, which have no relevance or bearing with the lis in

question, against the Petitioner in a matter before this

Hon'ble Court.

32. The reply affidavit does not place on record the so called

intelligence inputs regarding the anti-national activity. It

also does not reveal the source of these information nor

does it reveal any exercise conducted by the State

Government to satisfy itself with regards to its authenticity

and veracity.

33. The State Government has deliberately concealed the

fact that out of the two private companies which are

stated in Paragraph 8 of the reply affidavit, one is M/s

Welspun, which is closely associated with the

Respondent No. 3/ Shri Narendra Modi. The Petitioner

has already stated that during his tenure as the District

Collector of Kutch, Shri Modi had inaugurated a project of the said M/s Welspun Company in the Kutch district. It is

submitted, that if M/s Weslpun was indeed engaged in

criminal and anti-national activities, the Reply affidavit

should have stated the reasons for the association of the

Respondent No. 3/Chief Minister with such alleged anti-

national Company, and the details as to why such an

alleged anti-national company was allotted land in the

State of Gujarat. It is also not stated as to why the lands which were allotted to the said company have still not

been cancelled and FIRs were registered selectively

against the Petitioner herein only.

34. The State Government has deliberately in its Reply

affidavit failed to provide the copies of the following

documents:

a) Inputs received by intelligence agency b) Letter written by intelligence agency to place

the said two telephone numbers under

surveillance.

c) The noting on the file which showed that the Additional Chief Secretary, Home,

Government of Gujarat approved such surveillance.

d) The authority sent to the Service Provider to place the said numbers under surveillance.

35. With regards to the aforesaid allegations on the Petitioner

that he has indulged in suspicious financial transaction,

benami transaction and has acquired disproportionate

assets, it has been stated that not a single FIR has been

registered either by the State Government or by any other

agency despite of incriminating material against the

Petitioner being in the possession of the State

Government since the year 2009 as alleged. This only

proves that the allegations against the Petitioner are

merely an attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Court, cause

prejudice and somehow prevent this Hon'ble Court from examining the Crl. M.P. and the accompanying writ

petitions on merits.

36. The Petitioners family consisting of wife, Mrs Shyamal

Pradeep Sharma aged 57 years, a daughter Ms. Sujata Sharma aged about 30 years and a son Mr. Prashant

Sharma aged about 28 years are settled in the USA for

the last 20 years and are reputed professionals in their

own field, and there have been no suspicious transactions

between the Petitioner and his family members.

37. With regards to the alleged mobile conversations of the

Petitioner with several married women, as alleged in the

reply affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that the

transcripts of the mobile conversations have not been

delivered to the Petitioner herein and in absence thereof,

the Petitioner is unable to respond effectively. In any

case, the Petitioner fails to understand as to how the

transcripts of the telephonic conversations of the

Petitioner with some other person can have any material

bearing on the prayers that are sought for in the instant

Writ Petition as well as in the instant Crl. M.P.

38. It is respectfully submitted that the private conversations

of the Petitioner with the ladies, as alleged, cannot

constitute legal justification for violation of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Rules framed there under and the

directions issued by this Hon'ble Court with regards to

phone tapping.

39. It is clear that the State Government has taken this

unprecedented step of submitting these private

conversations, in order to prejudice this Honble Court against the Petitioner herein and mislead this Honble

Court and prevent this Honble Court from examining the

real issues at hand. By doing so, the State Government

has further provided proof of its animosity, hostility and

malice against the Petitioner herein which lends credence

to the Petitioners well-reasoned belief that he cannot

expect to get fair trial under the State Government.

40. The Reply Affidavit used the words such as pornographic

material against the Petitioner herein. However, the said

Reply affidavit betrays the basic lack of understanding as

what construes Pornographic Material. The very fact that

such harsh and unprecedented words have been

employed against the Petitioner by the State Government

in its reply affidavit is a further proof of the bias and

malafide that the State harbors against the Petitioner

herein.

41. It is submitted that the Reply Affidavit is silent as to

whether it has even received any complaint from the

persons with whom the Petitioner allegedly had these

telephonic conversations. The telephonic conversations

that the Petitioner had with the ladies as contained in the

Reply Affidavit are private conversations which have not

only been illegally intercepted but also illegally retained

on record in violation of the Telegraph Act and Rules

framed there under to be misused in this fashion

subsequently.

42. The Petitioner has suffered due to systematic malicious

propaganda engineered by the State Government at the

behest of Shri Narendra Modi to destroy his reputation

and career. The Petitioner was constrained to appear on

TV channels to clear the wild allegations and aspersions

that were leveled by the spokespersons owing allegiance

to Shri Narendra Modi and the party which is currently in

power in the State of Gujarat i.e., Bharatiya Janata Party (B.J.P.)

RE: LADY ARCHITECT WILLINGLY PLACED HERSELF

UNDER SURVEILLANCE:-

43. The Reply Affidavit states that the father of the said lady

Architect, one Shri Pran Lal Soni, himself made a request

to the Respondent No. 3/ Mr. Narendra Modi orally

somewhere in the year 2009 to take steps in my

daughters interest. The Reply Affidavit annexes a letter

dated 17.11.2013 written by the said Shri Pran Lal Soni,

the father of the said lady Architect to the National

Commission for Women and Gujarat State Commission for Women. The contents of the said letter reveal the

sheer duplicity of the State Govts claim.

44. In the said letter Shri Soni claims that he personally made

a request to the Chief Minister/Respondent No. 3 in the

year 2009 to take steps in his daughters interest due to

the personal and family reasons and owing to the fact that

Shri Soni has long standing relations spread over two

decades with Respondent No.3/Shri Narendra Modi.

Assuming without admitting in any manner that such an

oral request was indeed made, there is no written record

of any such request made by Shri P L Soni to Shri Modi in

the State Administration files.

45. A bare perusal of the letter dated 17.11.2013 does not

indicate that Mr. P L Soni had requested or authorized

Shri Modi to place his daughters phone under tapping or

place his daughter under illegal intrusive surveillance de

hors complying with the legal requirements. No nature of

threat is identified or stated which would warrant

deployment of scores of officers from the ATS and Crime

Branch Cell to be employed for her protection.

46. It is also pertinent to mention that Shri Sonis statement

that he knows Respondent No. 3/Shri Narendra Modi for

more than two decades is false and misleading, since it

was the Petitioner who first introduced the said Lady

architect to Shri Modi in 2004, and through her, her

parents Shri & Smt. Soni met Shri Modi for the first time

somewhere around in year 2006. The Petitioner requests

that the State Govt and/or Shri Modi be put to strict proof

to demonstrate that he know or met Shri Soni, let alone

have close personal ties with Shri Modi anytime prior to

2004. It is thus, evident that the statement made by Shri

Soni is done to protect the interest of his family under

duress and extreme pressure from the State Government.

It is also pertinent to note that the Lady Architect and her

family relocated from Bangalore to Ahmadabad and set

up business in Gujarat and were soon awarded with huge Government Projects only after 2008.

47. The State Government has not annexed any material to

show that in pursuance to its self-professed welfare

state activity, how many such fathers have made such

oral requests to Shri Modi and how many such daughters,

on the basis of such oral request by their fathers, are

placed under surveillance and are subject to phone tapping by the Anti Terrorist Squad and Crime Branch of

the State of Gujarat? Has this ever been done in the State of Gujarat since 2002 or even prior to that? If there is no other such precedent, then what was so unique about the

threat faced by the said lady architect which has not

been faced by any other lady in the State of Gujarat? The reply affidavit offers no answers to these questions.

48. The transcripts interestingly also reveal that the lady

Architect was ignorant that her telephone was being

tapped and that she was being placed under such

intrusive surveillance. The entire phone tapping episode

of the said lady Architect as well as that of the Petitioner

herein is an utter violation of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 as well as the Rules framed there

under especially Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Act

which have been introduced vide Notification of the

Ministry of Communication , Department of

Telecommunication, Government of India dated 16th

February, 1999 amending the Indian Telegraph Rules,

1951 as well as the directives contained in the judgment of this Honble Court in PUCL v. Union of India & Ors -

(1997) 1 SCC 301. The Petitioner has not reproduced these provisions explicitly in this rejoinder affidavit for the sake of brevity and craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to

refer to and rely upon on the said provisions as well as

law laid down by this Hon'ble Court at the time of oral

arguments.

49. The Petitioner most respectfully submits that the State of

Gujarat has set an unprecedented example which would be difficult to find in India whereby on the oral request by

a father of an adult daughter, a lady aged 30 years, the

Chief Minister of State employs the entire state machinery

from the Anti Terrorist Squad, CID Crime and the State

Police to conduct a full blown intrusive surveillance on the

lady in question. The claim of the State Government in its

Reply affidavit is rendered false and baseless when the

transcripts reveal that Shri Amit Shah, the then MoS,

Home instructs Mr. G.L. Singhal, IPS several times to

watch the movements of the Petitioner herein, who was

then posted as Municipal Commissioner, Bhavnagar, and

also to put a watch on a young woman named

********(Lady Architect) from Bhuj.

50. On instructions of Shri Amit Shah, Shri G.L. Singhal had

deputed some men from the Crime Branch (as ATS was short on subordinate staff) to follow the said lady architect, as directed by Shri Amit Shah. The above

direction of Shri Amit Shah goes on to prove that it is only

after the revelation of the transcripts by Cobrapost and

Gulail that the State Government concocted such defence

and planned a systematic character assassination of the

Petitioner herein.

51. The State Government in its reply in Paragraph 10(d) makes an averment that none of the

transcripts/conversation bears mention to the said lady

architect, which is a false and incorrect statement, in

contradiction to the submission made in Paragraph 15 of

the Crl M.P. under reply, wherein the following

conversation has transpired between Shri Amit Shah and

Shri G.L. Singhal is as hereunder:-

Amit Shah: That man had gone from Bhavnagar to Mumbai and is back here. In connection with the matter

G.L. Singhal: Ok Sir Amit Shah: we are watching him also G.L. Singhal: yes yes Amit Shah: so today deploy 8 to 10 men firstly, that

man is going to stay at Kuldips house.therethen he has called a Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation car.

G.L. Singhal: yes yes yes Amit Shah: And the Mansi matterkeep a watch

the whole night G.L. Singhal: right Amit Shah: call for men G.L. Singhal: yes yes yes Amit Shah: As he will stay here for a day or two and

try to being with his tactics G.L. Singhal: right.. Amit Shah: I have heard their conversation and

know the nature of their relationship G.L. Singhal: yes yes yes Amit Shah: Get more men or some of your

confidants G.L. Singhal: Sir I have called two three men from the

crime dept Amit Shah: two three IB men to watch the other side G.L. Singhal: yes yes sir Amit Shah: And some IB men to intercept calls in

the night are to be posted inside G.L. Singhal: yes yes sir

(Emphasis supplied)

52. It is further most respectfully submitted that the State

Government is also in possession of the telephonic

conversations from the said two mobile phone numbers

i.e. xxxxxxxx59 & xxxxxxxx99 of the Petitioner with the

said lady Architect. However, the reply affidavit conceals

any such conversation between the Petitioner and the

Lady architect, whereas it has displayed no such

inhibition in submitting telephonic conversations of the

Petitioner with other women in the Reply Affidavit.

RE: KULDIP SHARMA, IPS:-

53. The Reply Affidavit under reply further states that Shri

Kuldip Sharma, IPS, who is the elder brother of the

Petitioner herein, was given Central Government

deputation despite lack of clearance from the State

Government. The very fact that the Reply Affidavit refers

to Shri Kuldeep Sharma only substantiates one of the two

original grievances of the Petitioner in the Writ Petition

that the State Government is hostile and prejudiced towards the Petitioner because of the fact that he is

younger brother of Shri Kuldeep Sharma.

54. That the double standard and hypocrisy of the State

Government is clearly borne out when in one hand

several Charge Sheeted officers are given promotions

and on the other hand Charge Sheet and cases are used

as tools for victimization of Officers like the Petitioner and

his brother Shri Kuldip Sharma who had refused to obey

the illegal diktats issued by Shri Modi and Shri Amit Shah.

The chart, which is excerpted herein below reveals a

group of Charge Sheeted Officers who have seemingly

prospered in the State of Gujarat and have not been faced any punitive action unlike the Petitioner and his

brother:-

S. No.

Name with post

Contents Remarks

1. O.P. Mathur, IPS (Retd.)

ADGP, he was served with Chargesheet for moral turpitude where Shri O P Mathur had allegedly threatened a lady with his service revolver and asked to succumb to his indecent and vulgar demands. The State Government had concluded that this amounted to disgraceful and unbecoming conduct.

Charge sheet dropped and Mr. O.P. Mathur was promoted to the rank of DGP. After retirement, appointed DG Raksha Shakti University.

2. Mr. P.C. Pandey, former DGP, Gujarat

Charge sheeted by the CBI for the cold blooded murder of Tulsi Prajapati

Continues to be Chairman of the Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation, a post given to him

after retirement 3. Smt. Geeta

Johri-IPS (Retd.)

Charge sheeted by the CBI for the cold blooded murder of Tulsi Prajapati

Not suspended

4. O.P. Mathur, IPS (Retd.)

Charge sheeted by the CBI for the cold blooded murder of Tulsi Prajapati

Continues to be DG of Raksha Shakti University.

5. Amit Shah, then Minister of State for Home.

1) Arrested and charge sheeted for the murder of Sohrabuddin and Kausar Bi. 2) Again charge sheeted for the cold blooded murder of Tulsi Prajapati

In brazen disregard of investigation by the CBI and its finding, the Chief Minister continues to flaunt him and is given prominence within the political party also.

6. Harit Shukla, IAS, then Collector, Kutch

Named in the Charge sheet in case No. 9/2010 along with Petitioner for identical alleged misconduct

At first he was not arrested and then his name withdrawn from prosecution as this deponent was the only target though Shri Shuka had acted similarly in the matter, he was spared as

there was no personal animosity of Shri Modi with Shri Shukla.

7. S.S. Khandvawala, Former DGP.

Convicted for 5 years imprisonment by Additional Sessions Judge, Junagarh vide Order dated 30.09.2009 in Sessions Case No. 76/1982 for offences under Section 365, 348, 352 & 331, IPC.

Appointed DGP Gujarat on the pretext that he had obtained an interim relief from the Honble High Court.

55. SHRI NARENDRA MODIS RELIANCE MOBILE

NUMBER :- It is most respectfully submitted that while

one of the FIRs pertaining to the Petitioner herein,

contains allegation for mis-using the mobile number

xxxxxxxx99 which belongs to a private company i.e., M/s

Welspun. However, the State Government has chosen

not to act against Respondent No. 3 who used another

mobile number bearing no. 9909923400. It is submitted

that this number was owned by Reliance Industries

Limited and the address given to the Service Provider

was Vraj, Opp. HDFC Bank, Beside Chandanbala

Tower, Near Suvidha Shopping Centre, Paldi,

Ahmedabad-380007. The telephone in question was

activated on 29.06.2007 and de-activated on 08.03.2011

and was in use during the relevant period of 2009. This is

a clear case of discrimination and malafide against the

Petitioner and an abuse of the official position by the

Respondent No. 3 to settle the personal grievance

against the Petitioner herein.

56. The Petitioner respectfully submits that the lady architect

was regularly in touch with the Petitioner and shared

details of the conversations she was having with

Respondent No. 3, and it was at the behest of

Respondent No. 3 that she visited the Petitioner in

Bhavnagar to explore possibilities to start a new State

funded project as promised to her by Respondent No. 3. It was only after this clarification put forth by the Petitioner

that the State changed its stance and came up with an

explanation of financial transactions and issue of moral

conduct to justify its unlawful acts.

57. That the Petitioner herein is a witness to the text

messages (SMS) exchanged between the lady architect and Respondent No. 3 and it was through this exchange

that the Petitioner noted the details of the phone no.

9909923400 which is in fact registered in the name of

Reliance Industries, and was being used by Respondent

No. 3 for his own personal use.

RE: COMMISSION OF INQUIRY:

58. It is respectfully submitted that the State Government has

apparently constituted a Commission of Inquiry

(hereinafter COI) headed by Honble Justice (Retd.) Ms. Sugnyaben K. Bhatt and Shri K.C. Kapoor, IAS (Retd.) to inquire into the illegal telephonic tapping and surveillance.

At the outset it is most respectfully submitted that the

constitution of COI is a mere attempt of the State

Government to prevent this Honble Court from

adjudicating upon the facts bought on record by the Crl MP under reply, since till date the COI has not gone into

the details of the allegations as such. Moreover, it is

pertinent to point out that on one hand the State

Government debunks the transcripts filed by the

Petitioner in the instant CRL MP on the other hand

constitutes COI to enquire into the same. The very fact

that the State Government has now constituted COI

shows that there is sufficient material on record which

reveals the basis for a reasonable apprehension against

the State Government that the Petitioner will not get a

free and fair trial. The CoI cannot be expected to probe in

an independent and impartial manner and indict those

who have constituted the COI itself. Furthermore, the

constitution of COI does not constitute a legal and factual

bar for this Hon'ble Court to entertain and allow the

instant Writ Petition as well as Crl. Misc. Petition.

PARAWISE REPLY ON MERITS:

59. That the Petitioner herein denies all and singular

averments made by the State Government in the affidavit

under reply and relies on the submissions made herein

above in Preliminary submissions as response to the

same and seeks liberty of this Honble Court to refer and

rely on the same.

60. It is further respectfully submitted that the contents in the

instant Reply affidavit were in the domain of the State

Governments knowledge even on 20.09.2011 i.e., the

date on which the State Government filed its Counter

Affidavit to the accompanying writ petition. However, not a

whisper of the allegations that are contained in the Reply

Affidavit under reply herein dated 01.04.2014 were

mentioned in the Counter Affidavit filed by the State

Government to the Writ Petition earlier. This shows that

the contents of the instant Reply Affidavit under reply are

merely an afterthought

IN THE PREMISES OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND

CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT:

a) Allow the prayers as sought for in the instant Crl. Misc. Petition as well as in the Writ Petition;

b) Reject the contents of the Reply Affidavit dated 01.04.2014 filed by the State Government especially the

personal allegations leveled against the Petitioner as

contained in sealed cover;

c) Initiate appropriate action against the concerned Officers of the State Government for violation of the Indian

Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Rules framed thereunder

and judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court as well as a deliberate attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Court by filing

the reply affidavit;

d) Direct the State Government to produce all records pertaining to phone tapping and surveillance of the

Petitioner and the Lady Architect;

e) Order an inquiry by an independent agency into the usage, Call Data Records and telephonic transcripts of

the Reliance Mobile number 9909923400 used by Shri

Narendra Modi with the said Lady Architect and ;

f) and any further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances involved in this

case.

Drawn & Filed by

(SUNIL FERNANDES) Advocate for the Petitioner

New Delhi Dated: 11.04.2014