IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
MUMBAI
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDITION
WRIT
PETITION (L) NO. 1187 OF 2013
WRIT
PETITION NO. _____OF 2013
Mumbai
Taximen Sangathan ….Petitioner
Versus
Union
of India & others …Respondents
Affidavit
I, Sanjay Khemka, aged about 53 years, adult, Indian Inhabitant and the petitioner
above named , situated at 514, MIDAS, Sahar Plaza, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri
East, Mumbai 400059, do hereby solemnly affirm as under:
1. I say
that the above mention Writ filed by the present petitioner before this Hon’ble
Court raising the very hyper sensitive issue about the security threats to our
airports in Mumbai.
2. I say
that the petitioner had made the parties like Mr. Naseem Khan, Minister of
State, Government of Maharashtra as respondent no. 11, Mr. Sharad Pawar,
President NCP as respondent no. 12, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, president Indian
National Congress as respondent no. 13, the Hotel Sahara Star as respondent no.
14 and other respondent who are failed to perform their legal duties willfully
and deliberately.
3. I say
that during the research about the security concerns in and around the
airports, the petitioner finds the shocking pieces of evidence which proves the
nexus between the respondents, builders’ mafia, hotel and travel mafia and also
the illegal encroachers on the airport land in and around airport. It is
pertinent to note that the leaders of all political parties are building their
offices in and around airport and indulged in making illegal structures on the
airport land.
4. I say
that during the research about the security concern of the airports the
petitioner found various judgments of
this Hon’ble High Courts as under:
a) Writ
Petition no. 1956 of 2006 titled Hotel Sahara Star versus State of Maharashtra
and others in which the Government of Maharashtra had given the extra FSI to
the Sahara Star Hotel even the Joint Commissioner of police Law & Order had
clearly mention in his letter to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development on
08/09/2006 stating that …”May cause the serious the security concern with
respect to the safety of the domestic airport”. It is pertinent to note that
the State of Maharashtra had given permission to the Sahara Star Hotel i.e.
respondent no 14 that they may construct… “3 basement + ground floor+5 upper
floor structure. And also provide 672 no. of parking space (209 on each
basement) against the required 422 parking spaces as per D.C.R…” the copy of
the order dated 30/03/2007 passed by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice
F.I. Rebello and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop V. Mohata is enclosed as Exhibit –K.
b) I say
that the respondent no. 14 is violating the permissions as mentioned above and
the construction of the hotel is not as per the approved plan specifications
and also they are running the Ambey Valley, and other offices in the basement
of Sahara Star or the respondent. The copy of the screen shot of the website of
the Ambey Valley is enclosed as Exhibit-L. it
is pertinent to note that the petitioner had filed the RTI application with the
office of respondent no. 5 and the office of the Principal Secretary, Urban
Development. The copies of the said RTI applications are annexed as Exhibit-M(
collectively) .
c) I say
that the present petitioner had informed the respondents as well as to the
concerned authorities about the violation of the permissions by the respondent
no. 14 as mentioned in the order of Writ Petition no. 1956 of 2006 titled Hotel
Sahara Star versus State of Maharashtra and others. The copy of the said
application are annexed as Exhibit-N.
5. I say
that the respondent no. 7 had awarded the slum rehabilitation project in and
around airports or on the airport land to one builder Housing Development
Infrastructure Limited on 15/10/2007 with the following conditions which are
very much clearly mentioned in the order passed the single judge of this
Hon’ble High Court in Arbitration Petition lodging no. 1538 of 2012 and Appeal
lodging no 854 of 2012 in Arbitration Petition lodging no. 1538 of 2012. The
copy of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Arbitration Petition
lodging no. 1538 of 2012 and Appeal lodging no 854 of 2012 in Arbitration
Petition lodging no. 1538 of 2012 are annexed as Exhibit-
O & P respectively.
I.
The builder is entitled to receive 65.20
acre land from the airport land out of about 276 acre of land.
II.
The builder has to pay the cash deposit
of Rs. 300 crores, by 30/11/2008 in the way of performance guarantee as per the
clause 8.1 of the agreement as, amended by deed of confirmation dated
14/10/2008 but not paid by the HDIL till date.
III.
The builder has to reimbursement to
respondent no. 7 of amount of Rs. 25 crores paid by the respondent no. 7 to the
MMRDA under the agreement dated 12/12/2006 between respondent no. 7 MMRDA by
14/04/2008 as per 3.1 (q) (v) of the agreement but not paid by the builder till
date.
IV.
The builder is failed to pay the fee Rs.
15 lacs to the PMC (MM Consultants Private Limited) due to the act of builder
HDIL, the consultant hold the amount of Rs.1616152-00 of the respondent no. 7.
V.
The builder is also failed to pay Rs. 25
crores to the MMRDA vide their letter dated 21/04/2011.
VI.
The said airport land slums project
should be completed in a phase manner as under:
a. Phase
1 (i) by 14/04/2009
b. Phase
1 (ii) by 14/10/2009
c. Phase
1 (iii) by 14/10/2010
Phase
2 should be commence by 14/10/2010 but nothing is happened till date
6. I say
that it is very strange that the builder/HDIL has not paid the performance
guarantee worth Rs. 300 crores in cash since 30/11/2008 but till date nothing
is happened. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no. 7 loose minimum
Rs. 108 crores in the way of interest (@9% per annum for 4 years). It is pertinent to note that the respondent
no. 7 is taking this loss willfully and deliberately with the connivance of
corrupt officials of Urban Development Ministry, MMRDA, SRA, Builder HDIL,
collector suburban and others for their own personal gains and benefits. It is
further pertinent to note that the airport land is the public property and not
the personal property of respondent no. 7.
7. I say
that the respondent no5, 7, 8, 10, 14 and the builder HDIL, MMRDA, the
collectors suburban, the Urban Development Ministry, the Airport Authority of
India and the State of Maharashtra are friendly fighting the litigation/cases
in the court of law just to show the public at large that they are fighting for
their rights in the court of law but it is mere an eye wash.
8. I say
that after filing this present writ petition, RTI Applications and the other
applications with the different authorities about this scam which is worth more
than Rs. 15000 crores and the petitioner is getting threats with the warning
that if the petitioner not going to withdraw or stop or to continue his
proceedings then the life of the petitioner and his family will be made hell
and also getting threats that if the petitioner is not going to leave the city
of Mumbai then they will eliminate the petitioner and his family along with his
supporter.
In the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, crystal clear prove that all the authorities and all the
respondents are hands and gloves with each other and this is a very big scam
worth more than Rs. 15000 crores and also the grave threats to our airports due
to the action of the respondents and the authorities, therefore the petitioner
pray that:
A. This
Hon’ble Court may allow the petitioner to make the parties to the MMRDA, SRA,
Urban Development Department, Housing Development Infrastructure Ltd, Chief
Fire officer & the Collector Suburbs, Bandra in present writ petition in
the interest of natural justice.
B. This
Hon’ble Court may direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to register the
crime/or conduct the investigation of the slum development project on the
airport land.
C. This
Hon’ble court may direct the respondent no.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 to take immediate
necessary legal action against the respondent no. 14
D. This
Hon’ble Court may direct to provide the security to the present petitioner and
his family along with another office bearer i.e. the secretary of the present petitioner.
E. Any
other further order or directions deem fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court.
Place: Mumbai
Date: 13/05/2013
Sanjay
Khemka
Petitioner in Person
Verification
I, Sanjay
Sitaram Khemka, 514, MIDAS, Sahar Plaza, AK Road, Andheri east, Mumbai
400059, Do hereby state and declare that on solemn affirmation that whatever
has been stated in the paragraphs 1 to 15 of the present petition are true and
correct to best of my knowledge and belief and I believe the same to be true.
Solemnly
Affirmed at Mumbai
This
13th Day of May, 2013
Sanjay
Khemka
Deponent
No comments:
Post a Comment