Date: July 30, 2010.

To

The Deputy Commissioner,

Chandigarh Administration,
Chandigarh.

Subject: Chandigarh Administration itself has been breaking the law &
doing Contempt of the Supreme Court, by repetitive section 144
orders against assembly of 5 or more persons etc, and you are requested to
urgently put an end to this undemocratic, illegal kalank on the face of
Chandigarh.

Dear Sir,

This is further to my communication today morning at Annexure 1,

regarding the intention of citizens to fight out against illegal section-144 CrPC
orders, that too being passed ex-parte.

It is shocking that this illegality has been going on for more than 20 years
and no-one in the Administration has noticed it. The Government is always
very sanctimonious in telling the citizenry that ignorance of law is no excuse.
Then what about the Government itself flouting established law by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court?

This practice started from Oct 31, 1984 ( and it was justified at that point of
time as that was the day of the assassination of the Prime Minister of India.).
The Administration needs to introspect whether anything in the past 10 years
is even 1% of the gravity of that situation, not to speak that at that time the
S144 period was only 7 days & then another for 15 days. It is hard to
imagine that now it is being ordered for 2 months with impunity.

Your office has continuous file only from 1993 onwards related to these
successive section 144 promulgations( even in these there seem to be some
papers missing). The previous files are not tracable, and the office worked
hard to get the earlier orders from the printing press to give the answer to
my RTI application.

The list of dates of these are attached in Annexure 2. It is clear that these
have been mechanically asked & ordered, and are mostly same & verbatim
( even a cyclostyle seems to have been made) with only the dates
changed and have been issued repetitively. A sampling of the last few
tell that these successive orders have been issued after 4,3,1,2,5,4,5,0
days gap.
How could the Administration not be aware that these very repetitive
orders have been expressly banned by a 3 Judge bench of Hon’ble
Justices Misra, Bhagwati & Sen of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1983
itself & that that been the established law of the land since then. The
relevant portion is attached at Annexure 3. We do not need to add anything
more, the Hon’ble Supreme Court says it all. Kindly appreciate the
highlighted parts which convey the clarity & un-ambiguity of the orders.

Thus these shocking revelations mean that if 5 or more citizens get together
in Chandigarh, actually they are not the ones who are breaking the law.
Rather the Administration itself is breaking the law as well as promoting a
situation is leading to Police Raj. You are requested to urgently put an
end to this highly-illegal practice. If another such s 144 order is
promulgated with this notice on the file, it would be a conscious violation of
the Supreme Court Orders.

Also, kindly launch an inquiry to fix responsibility in Police

/Administration for this lapse & contempt of Supreme Court. It is
important to know as to how as so how it could have happened in the first
place, and why it went unnoticed for so long, and what system reforms
should be put in place so that it never happens again.

Looking forward to hear from you at the earliest

Regards,

(VIVEK ADITYA)
H. No.: 775, Sector 22-A,
Chandigarh.
Tel:9569746633
ANNEXURE-1 ( email & SMS sent in the morning today to dc@chd.nic.in)

From Vivek Aditya <vivekaditya@gmail.com>

to dc@chd.nic.in
date Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:06 AM
subject Ref: My SMS to your goodself.

To

The Deputy commissioner,

Chandigarh.

Dear Sir,

I am emailing the SMS message sent today morning to your goodself:-

Yesterday evening, I finally got the papers regarding S-144 from your office
under RTI after months of effort. Thanks.

I will give a detailed communication within a day regarding the illegality of these
shockingly repetitive orders ( going on for more than 20 ! years now) & would submit
established law laid down by the Supreme Court which is so decisive
that it would mean any such S144 are in contempt of the SC.

Meanwhile, yesterday I was not given the latest 144 papers including the letter from the
SSP, as the file had been put up for 144 renewal, perhaps today itself.

Thus I am officially submitting that as per CrPC section 144(2) I urge that notice be
served upon me,
in the interests of natural justice.

(Kindly hear me out before) any Ex-Parte order under S-144(2) as I am willing to receive
notice & oppose yet another such S-144 order.

The notice may kindly be served upon me at the address:

Vivek Aditya
775, Sector 22-A,
Chandigarh.
My mobile number is 9569746633.
My email is as above - vivekaditya@gmail.com

Regards.
Vivek Aditya.
ANNEXURE-2
As obtained from
File No. 1 (1993 to 09-05-1999)
S. No. Order date Date Detail Gap between orders page no.
1. 01-12-1993 02-12-1993 to 31-01-1994 3
2. 01-02-1994 01-02-1994 to 02-04-1994 0 10
3. 05-04-1994 06-04-1994 to 04-06-1994 3 days 15
4. 17-06-1994 18-06-1994 to 16-08-1994 13 25
5. 26-08-1994 27-08-1994 to 25-10-1994 10 33
6. 10-11-1994 11-11-1994 to 09-01-1995 16 40
7. 10-01-1995 13-01-1995 to 13-03-1995 3 47
8. 15-03-1995 16-03-1995 to 14-05-1995 2 55
9. 18-05-1995 19-05-1995 to 17-07-1995 4 63
10. 19-07-1995 20-07-1995 to 18-09-1995 2 71
11. 27-09-1995 28-09-1995 to 26-11-1995 9 79
12. 29-11-1995 30-11-1995 to 28-01-1996 3 87
13. 06-02-1996 07-02-1996 to 06-04-1996 9 94
14. 10-04-1996 11-04-1996 to 09-06-1996 4 99
15. 19-06-1996 21-06-1996 to 19-08-1996 11 107
16. 30-08-1996 31-08-1996 to 29-10-1996 11 121
17. 16-01-1997 17-01-1997 to 17-03-1997 79 127
18. 27-03-1997 28-03-1997 to 26-05-1997 10 139
19. 19-08-1997 02-07-1997 to 30-08-1997 36 147
20. 01-09-1997 02-09-1997 to 31-10-1997 2
21. 18-11-1997 19-11-1997 to 17-01-1998 18 244
22. 03-02-1998 04-02-1998 to 04-04-1998 17 277
23. 28-04-1998 29-04-1998 to 27-06-1998 24 291
24. 06-08-1998 07-08-1998 to 05-10-1998 9
25. 04-01-1999 05-01-1999 to 05-03-1999 87
26. 10-03-1999 11-03-1999 to 09-05-1999 5
27. 21-05-1999 24-05-1999 to 22-07-1999 14
28. 30-07-1999 02-08-1999 to 30-09-1999 10
29. 01-10-1999 03-10-1999 to 02-12-1999 2

File No. 2 (1999 to 2006)

S. No. Order date Date Detail Gap between orders page no.
1. 06-12-1999 08-12-1999 to 05-02-2000 5
2. 11-02-2000 11-02-2000 to 10-04-2000 5
3. 19-04-2000 20-04-2000 to 18-06-2000 9
4. 20-06-2000 21-06-2000 to 19-08-2000 2
5. 25-08-2000 28-08-2000 to 25-10-2000 8
6. 26-10-2000 01-11-2000 to 30-12-2000 6
7. 04-01-2001 08-01-2001 to 08-03-2001 8
8. 09-03-2001 13-03-2001 to 11-05-2001 4
9. 18-05-2001 21-05-2001 to 19-07-2001 9 48
10. 24-07-2001 25-07-2001 to 22-09-2001 5 54
11. 01-10-2001 03-10-2001 to 01-12-2001 10 61
12. 03-12-2001 04-12-2001 to 01-02-2002 3 67
13. 12-02-2002 12-02-2002 to 12-04-2002 10 73
14. 02-03-2002 03-03-2002 to 01-04-2002(Spl only 30 days) 79
15. 17-04-2002 18-04-2002 to 16-06-2002 5 85
16. 25-06-2002 26-06-2002 to 24-08-2002 9 91
17. 03-09-2002 05-09-2002 to 03-11-2002 11 97
18. 07-11-2002 07-11-2002 to 05-01-2003 3 103
19. 10-01-2003 11-01-2003 to 11-03-2003 5 109
20. 17-03-2003 18-03-2003 to 16-05-2003 6 115
21. 19-05-2003 21-05-2003 to 19-07-2003 4 120
22. 21-07-2003 22-07-2003 to 19-09-2003 2 127
23. 21-11-2003 22-11-2003 to 19-01-2004 63 133
24. 05-03-2003 06-03-2004 to 04-05-2004 45 139
25. 04-05-2004 06-05-2004 to 04-07-2004 1 147
26. 09-07-2004 09-07-2004 to 06-09-2004 4 151
27. 10-09-2004 08-09-2004 to 06-11-2004 1 157
28. 25-11-2004 24-11-2005 to 22-01-2005 17 161
29. 24-01-2005 24-01-2005 to 24-03-2005 1 165
30. 23-03-2005 26-03-2005 to 24-05-2005 1 169
31. 26-05-2005 26-05-2005 to 24-07-2005 1 173
32. 22-08-2005 23-08-2005 to 21-10-2005 29
33. 25-11-2005 26-10-2005 to 24-12-2005 4
34. 27-12-2005 28-12-2005 to 26-02-2006 3
35. 28-02-2006 01-03-2006 to 30-04-2006 2
36. 05-05-2006 08-05-2006 to 06-07-2006 7

File No. 3. (Current File)

S. No. Order date Date Detail Gap between orders
1. 07-07-2006 08-07-2006 to 09-09-2006 1
2. 11-09-2006 12-09-2006 to 10-11-2006 2
3. 14-11-2006 16-11-2006 to 14-01-2007 5
4. 09-01-2007 16-01-2007 to 16-03-2007 1
5. 16-03-2007 20-03-2007 to 18-05-2007 3
6. 16-05-2007 19-05-2007 to 17-07-2007 0
7. 16-07-2007 19-07-2007 to 16-09-2007 1
8. 19-09-2007 20-09-2007 to 19-11-2007 3
9. 16-11-2007 21-11-2007 to 19-01-2008 1
10. 31-01-2008 01-02-2008 to 31-03-2008 12
11. 04-04-2008 05-04-2008 to 03-06-2008 4
12. 05-06-2008 06-06-2008 to 04-08-2008 2
13. 28-08-2008 30-08-2008 to 28-10-2008 25
14. 05-11-2008 06-11-2008 to 04-01-2009 8
15. 09-01-2009 10-01-2009 to 10-03-2009 5
16. 16-03-2009 11-03-2009 to 15-05-2009 0
17. 18-05-2009 19-05-2009 to 17-07-2009 3
18. 22-07-2009 22-07-2009 to 19-09-2009 4
19. 24-09-2009 25-09-2009 to 23-11-2009 5
20. 25-11-2009 26-11-2009 to 24-01-2010 2
21. 25-01-2010 26-01-2010 to 26-03-2010 1
22. 27-03-2010 30-03-2010 to 28-05-2010 3
23. 01-06-2010 02-06-2010 to 31-07-2010 4
ANNEXURE 3

PETITIONER:
ACHARYA JAGDISHWARANAND AVADHUTA, ETC.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CALCUTTA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT 20/10/1983

BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BHAGWATI, P.N.
SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)

CITATION:
1984 AIR 512 1984 SCR (1) 447
1983 SCC (4) 522 1983 SCALE (2)565
CITATOR INFO :
HO 1987 SC 748 (23)
RF 1992 SC 377 (10)

JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions Nos. 6890, 7204
of 1982 and 3491 of 1983.
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India
Ram Jethmalani, V.M. Tarkunde and R. Dwivedi for the
Petitioner.
M.K. Ramamurthi, D.P. Mukherjee and G.S. Chatterjee for
the Respondents State of West Bengal.
K.K. Venugopal, M/s. Inderjit Sen and G.S. Chatterjee
for the Respondent.
Danial A. Latiffi and R.S. Sodhi for the Intervener,
All India Lawyers Union.

Excerpt regarding 144: [ Highlights supplied]

“
The other aspect, viz., the
propriety of repetitive prohibitory orders is, however, to
our mind a serious matter and since long arguments have been
advanced, we propose to deal with it. In this case as fact
from October 1979 till 1982 at the interval of almost two
months orders under s. 144(1) of the Code have been made
from time to time. It is not disputed before us that the
power conferred under this section is intended for immediate
prevention of breach of peace or speedy remedy. An order
made under this section is to remain valid for two months
from the date of its making as provided in sub-section (4)
of s. 144. The proviso to sub-s. (4) authorises the State
Government in case it considers it necessary so to do for
preventing danger to human life, health or safety, or for
preventing a riot or any affray, to direct by notification
that an order made by a Magistrate may remain in force for a
further period not exceeding six months from the date on
which the order made by the Magistrate would have, but for
such order, expired. The effect of the proviso, therefore,
is that the State Government would be entitled to give the
prohibitory order an additional term of life but that would
be limited to six months beyond the two months' period in
terms of sub-s. (4) of s. 144 of the Code. Several decisions
of different High Courts have rightly taken the view that it
is not legitimate to go on making successive orders after
earlier orders have lapsed by efflux of time. A Full Bench
consisting of the entire Court of 12 Judges in Gopi Mohun
Mullick v. Taramoni Chowdhrani(1) examining the provisions
of s. 518 of the Code of 1861 (corresponding to present s.
144) took the view that such an action was beyond the
Magistrate's powers. Making of successive orders was
disapproved by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
in Bishessur Chuckerbutty & Anr. v. Emperor.(1) Similar view
was taken in Swaminatha Mudaliar v. Gopalakrishna Naidu;(2)
Taturam Sahu v. The State of Orissa;(3) Ram Das Gaur v. The
City Magistrate, Varanasi;(4) and Ram Narain Sah & Anr. v.
Parmeshwar Prasad Sah & Ors.(5) We have no doubt that the
ratio of these decisions represents a correct statement of
the legal position. The proviso to sub-s. (4) of s. 144
which gives the State Government jurisdiction to extend the
prohibitory order for a maximum period of six months beyond
the life of the order made by the Magistrate is clearly
indicative of the position that Parliament never intended
the life of an order under s. 144 of the Code to remain in
force beyond two months when made by a Magistrate. The
scheme of that section does not contemplate repetitive
orders and in case the situation so warrants steps have to
be taken under other provisions of the law such as s. 107 or
s. 145 of the Code when individual disputes are raised and
to meet a situation such as here, there are provisions to be
found in the Police Act. If repetitive orders are made it
would clearly amount to abuse of the power conferred by
s.144 of the Code. It is relevant to advert to the decision
of this Court in Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors.,(6) where the vires of s. 144 of the Code was
challenged. Upholding the provision, this Court observed:
"Public order has to be maintained in advance in
order to ensure it and, therefore, it is competent to a
legislature to pass a law permitting an appropriate
authority to take anticipatory action or place
anticipatory restrictions upon particular kinds of acts
in an emergency for the purpose of maintaining public
order...."
It was again emphasized:
"But it is difficult to say that an anticipatory
action taken by such an authority in an emergency where
danger to public order is genuinely apprehended is
anything other than an action done in the discharge of
the duty to maintain order..."

This Court had, therefore, appropriately stressed upon the

feature that the provision of s. 144 of the Code was
intended to meet an emergency. This postulates a situation
temporary in character and, therefore, the duration of an
order under s. 144 of the Code could never have been
intended to be semi-permanent in character.
Similar view was expressed by this Court in Gulam Abbas
& Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., where it was said that "the
entire basis of action under s. 144 is provided by the
urgency of the situation and the power thereunder is
intended to be availed of for preventing disorders,
obstructions and annoyances with a view to secure the public
weal by maintaining public peace and tranquillity ...."
Certain observations in Gulam Abbas's decision regarding the
nature of the order under s. 144 of the Code-judicial or
executive-to the extent they run counter to the decision of
the Constitution Bench in Babulal Parate's case, may require
reconsideration but we agree that the nature of the order
under s. 144 of the Code is intended to meet emergent
situation. Thus the clear and definite view of this Court is
that an order under s. 144 of the Code is not intended to be
either permanent or semi-permanent in character.
“