OPEN LETTER AND HUMBLE REQUEST TO JUSTICE KATJU (FORMER CJI]

HONESTY IN ROS & SOCIETY MATTERS

• ROS is Regitrar of Society
• Samiti/samithi is Sri Ayyappa Sewa Samithi Regd (Lko). This samiti is nothing to do with Ayyappa temple raised/managed by another society of englishised name of this as Lord Ayyappa Service Society, which was started and registered later than the samiti
• I mentioned the other society 'cos, the very first question asked by registrar, by court, as well as by others who knew the existence of Lord Ayyappa temple in Lucknow is that how the samiti is related to the temple. However almost (99.9%) all keralites omiting negligible number of few kerala brahmin is member of the other society raising/maintaining the temple. The temple or temple affair is nothing to do with the Sri Ayyappa Sewa Samithi, There was orignal plan/objective of the samiti was to construct temple in Lucknow, organising religious pujas etc, building library etc., which was hyjacked by the paraller organisation.
• Sangam/TamilSangam is Muthamizh Sangam Lucknow Regd.
• In year 2001 I filed a writ with help of advocate and the case was taking its own time.
• In year 2002 I made out a PIL against the president of a regd soc. The fresh PIL came before the bench of Justice Katju and justice Sethi and later withdrew both cases it because of some constraints.

The samiti terminated my life membership on some grounds without giving me opportunity to explain in a meeting, as my case is against president and it was against natural justice for me to present when the same president to chair.

The same samiti revoked my membership and was made joint secretary after a lapse of about 10 years. Again since 2010 after repeated complaints against the irregularties done by the current team to ROS, I moved court against the registrar,

Regarding Samiti.

1. In 2010 and afterwards I made repeated complaints against the irregularties done by the current team to ROS, moved court in 2014 and (2015 -below,separately -on Muthamizh sangam - of almost same committee) against the registrar of inaction,
2. The case is a matter of just an irregularity of representation of figures in balance sheets and I have solid evidence rather proof.
3. The correction after my pointing out of error was with revised figure for banks interest/FD maturity credit. The figure given earlier as well as the second one are also erroneous and even after years it is quite easy to figure out whether my observation is correct or not.
4. Not only that in subsequent year there is correction for previous year without mentioning the year of accounting and the correction is also of correct procedure just with a footnote. This vindicates my claim that the errors pointed out by me in the respective year after AGM, within 24 hours of obtaining the material after the AGM, in pure violation to the provisions of giving statements to members before the AGM. How is is possible to comment on it or deliberate in AGM if documents are not provided before hand.
5. This society matter is of just around Rs. 3500 but the rules books are very clear and as per that there is clear violation of rules and regulations of regostered society.
6. I moved court just because, the bye laws are well documented and there is clear violation of it, not only by this team, but by all teams ever since registration.
7. whereas, the bye laws of other sangam which I am going to mention next has vague set of rules, against the basic tenets of the meaning of the registered society. So I wanted to link both these society matters.
8. There was passing of receipts and payements statement in one year AGM and making of balance sheets for that year along with subsequent year etc.There were three set of balance sheets - apart from Receipts/payments in 1st year, one passed in 2nd year, one revised and passed in subsequent 3rd year and one for IT purposes in the 3rd year after all the ones before. And all these for a paltry income of Rs. 50k- and expenses of 125k after pinching from FD, It is utterly ridiculous and the concerned treasurer in preparing all these statements is serving as full time General Manager Finance in Times of India. He has been mentioned as a qualified Chartered accountant. I do not belive in his qualification of CA, as his capabily of preparing B/s after making a receipt/payment sheet is questionable. Where is the need for all these sort of manipulations, that too in bank's credit, for this tiny religious registered organisation?
9. In the process, what is hurting me is that, a 50 year family friend, had shyed away from me, Another close friend of long standing turned up to assault me. The relatives living in Lucknow and associated with the samiti had turned soar. I am braving against all these.
10. My friend circle is almost nil or just limited to one North Indian family friend, an IAS (UP cadre) with more than 30 years of service, whose honesty can be gauged from his spending last years of life without a own vehicle or own house, all along even after retirment lived in govt quarters either allotted to him or in govt guest house or his son's quarters, allotted by govt.
11. I had the example /role model of senior army officer, of Kerala origin in my family, who never shared privileged canteen items, with relatives even with me, even in the matter of household articles like soap. He even killed the idea of getting a 'yamaha' for his son, saying that he is a earning member and should not use his privilege.

The constraints for proceeding further the two cases 15 years ago:

1. The matter is of samiti not following rules and regulations whereas just by then I my self filed papers for the past 17 years then and got the renewal of registration done with assurance of society to follow in future.
2. The PIL is on the president, who is about 14 years elder to me and had done omen service to the society, In my opinion, he had been doing that omen service by misusing his privilege of services canteen. He had made almost the entire members of religious organisation to drinks. He is a tee-totaller.
3. The matter pertains to a voucher vouched by president which had objection by a CA, for not giving proper explanation. He vowed to call his own CA and get it audited/okeyed that too in his house and refused to come for joint discussion and later he did so and filed with ROS.
4. The voucher value is of Rs.1500 only.
5. I had already spent around Rs. 3500 for the first case and was not seeing any result, Hence the PIL without adv. and had already spent aroud Rs.750 for filing.
6. An adv. tout on seeing plight of getting the case listed at Number 72, suggested me to give an amout of Rs.750 to him and will see to get it within number 12 that too the next week therafter itself.
7. I hesitated because, if he can do that, then the standing counsel/Adv for respondent can also push the case to No. 72. and so on. Now-a-days I come to know that advocates misses the court in some pretext of attending other court etc, or absenting that day and so on in case of unfavourable court. The case drags on and I will be spending more and more money.
8. My family members were against me taking on a retired senior army officer, who has considerable influence in the society, who can physically harm my family members if not me.
9. By that time the counter affidavit, in the first case by the president, also on behalf of the ROS, and I have their counter and will be able to show to all members and tell the society about the untruth and escapism in that CA.
10. I am spending my money, whereas the president was using samiti fund for legal purposes. Incidentally about 30% of accruals of fund of samiti of 19 years standing by just two years of my service as Secretary, that too in that second year, I had tendered resignation, however half heartedly withdrawn, but took Sabari mala pilgrim during the only puja of the year of the samiti.
11. Regarding proof of canteen usage etc, the receipts which I got, were discarded by my advocate as flimsy.
12. In counter affidavit, the party has threatened me to sue me for defaming him.