Copy of Writ Petition in Sahara Q Shop Bond/advance

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No-                          of 2013 (M/B-Civil)

Amitabh and Nutan Thakur                                         Petitioners

Versus

SEBI and others                                                                Respondents

INDEX

S No	Description of documents relied upon		Page No
		From	To
1.	List of Dates and Events (separate)	Separate
2.	Memo of Writ Petition
3.	Annexure No 1 Copy of representation dated 06/11/2012
4.	Annexure No 2 Copy of two Sahara Q Shop Bonds
5.	Annexure No 3 Copy of the Scheme Chart of Sahara India
6.	Annexure No 4 Copy of the letter dated 26/10/2012
7.	Annexure No 5 Copy of General Terms and Conditions
8.	Annexure No 6 Copy of the responses from various authorities
9.	Photo Identity of the petitioner
10.	Affidavit

 Lucknow                                                                Dr Nutan Thakur
Dated- 05/09/2013                                           Petitioner in Person                                                                                                        # 94155-34525

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No-                          of 2013 (M/B-Civil)

Amitabh and Nutan Thakur                                         Petitioners

Versus

SEBI and others                                                                Respondents

                             LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

S No               Date                                                   Event                       

1.     31/08/2012                                   Hon’ble Supreme Court order as

                                                              regards two Sahara companies

2.     22/10/2012                                   Back-dated issue of Sahara Q shop

                                                              Bonds/receipts

3.     25/10/2012                                   Petitioners enquire into the Sahara

                                                              Q Shop Bonds

4.     26/03/2012                                   Petitioners buy one Sahara Q Shop

                                                              bond each

5.     06/11/2012                                   Petitioners send representations

                                                              to SEBI and others

The petitioners have bought one bond/advance receipt of Rs. 1000 each from a company called Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited. The petitioners were told by the authorities of Sahara Q Shop that they would get a return of Rs. 2335 on a Rs. 1000 bond after a period of six years and they were also provided a Scheme Chart of Sahara India parivar which said that the LBP redemption value/return of Rs. 1000 would be Rs. 2354 after a period of 6 years. But the General Terms and Conditions of the Sahara Q Shop bonds stated things which were quite different from that being told orally and through the Scheme Chart. Moreover, to the best of the petitioners’ information, the Sahara Q Shop has not been listed in any of Security Exchanges and yet Sahara Q Shop seems to be collecting public money, including that of the petitioners. The petitioners sent a representation dated 06/11/2012 to various respondents to enquire into the matters but no enquiry has so far taken place in the representation sent by the petitioners. Hence, left with no other option, the petitioners are forced to approach this Hon’ble Court to safeguard their interests.

Hence this Writ Petition.       

Lucknow                                                                 Dr Nutan Thakur
Dated- 05/09/2013                                           Petitioner in Person                                                                                                        # 94155-34525

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No-                of 2013 (M/B-Civil)

1.     Amitabh Thakur, aged about 45 years, s/o Sri T N Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

2.     Dr Nutan Thakur, aged about 40 years, w/o Sri Amitabh Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow--------           Petitioners

Versus

1.     Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Plot No.C4-A, 'G' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),  Mumbai 400051 - 110 001

2.     Union of India through Ministry of Corporate Affairs, 'A' Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110 001

3.     Union of India through Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001

4.     State of Uttar Pradesh through Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow

5.     Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Comlex, Aliganj, Lucknow – 226024  -----------     Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His other Hon’ble companion Judges of the aforesaid Court:

The humble petition of the above named petitioner most respectfully begs to submit as under:

1.     That by means of this petition, the petitioners are invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court vested with it  through Article 226 of the  Constitution to direct the concerned respondents to immediately enquire into the matters presented by the petitioners in their representation dated 06/11/2012 (Annexure No 1) presented to the Chairman, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI, for short), along with other public authorities including the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA, for short), Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs and State of Uttar Pradesh and through this Writ Petition as regards the suspected/alleged improprieties and inconsistencies in the bonds/advances being issued by Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited (Sahara Q Shop, for short), Respondent No 5, because despite repeated prayers to all these public authorities, no enquiry has so far been conducted in this matter and the petitioners’ representations are moving from one office to other, thereby jeopardizing the petitioners’ interests in the two Sahara Q Shop Bond/Advances dated 22/10/2012 (Annexure No2) bought by them.

The petitioners declare that they have not filed any other Writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court either at Allahabad or its Lucknow bench pertaining to the subject matter and/ or for the relief prayed for in the instant writ petition. It is further declared that in respect of the same subject, no caveat notice has been received by the petitioners.

A copy of the representation dated 06/11/2012 is being attached as Annexure No 1.

2.     That the Petitioner No 1, Amitabh Thakur, an officer of the Indian Police Service, Uttar Pradesh Cadre, also active as regards issues of transparent and accountable governance and Petitioner No 2, Dr Nutan Thakur. a social activist and freelance journalist associated with transparency in Governance and Human Right issues. They are filing this Writ Petition in their personal capacity, are holders of two “bonds” (investment receipts/advances) with receipt no 071034485933 (in the name of petitioner No 1) and 071034485932 (in the name of petitioner No 2) of Sahara Q Shop. A copy of the two Sahara Q Shop bonds is being attached as Annexure No 2.

3.     That, as per the company website, Sahara Q Shop is a venture of Sahara India Pariwar, which is  offering completely adulteration-free, 100% quality consumer merchandise products in 73 categories, such as staples, processed foods, personal care products, home care products, general merchandise and lifestyle products, at most competitive prices.  The Press Release of Sahara India Parivar dated 15/08/2012 related with Sahara Q Shop present on the company website says- “Sahara launches its mega Quality Consumer Merchandise Retail Business under the brand name of ‘Sahara Q Shop’ Our aim behind this launch of pure and best products is to gradually kill Adulteration in India. ‘Sahara Q Shop’ provides a comprehensive range of products under 73 different categories with 800 SKUs in Staples, Processed Foods, Personal Care Products, Home Care Products, General Merchandise and Lifestyle Products at most competitive prices””

4.     That before making their investment in Sahara Q Shop, the two petitioners had sent one Sri Sunil Kumar Singh to Aliganj branch of the Sahara Q shop office on 25/10/2012 (Thursday) at around 11.30 AM to get exact details about the investment modality. Sri Sunil Singh went to Aliganj branch and got two Forms for “investment” at this office which the petitioners were told to fill up and produce along with an Identity proof and address proof and Rs. 1000 each.  

5.     That while in the Sahara Q shop office, Sri Sunil Singh had made a call from his phone no 072757-75052 to mobile phone no 094155-34526 of petitioner No 1 and made him talk to some employee of Sahara Q shop. This employee told petitioner No 1 that this was an investment scheme where he would be getting around Rs. 2335/ for an investment of Rs. 1000, after a period of six years.

6.     That Sri Sunil Singh also brought a “Scheme Chart” of “Sahara India Parivar” where along with other Schemes like Gold Bank Scheme, Sahara U Golden, Sahara S Bhavishya, Sahara A Select, Sahara E Shine, Sahara M Benifit, Sahara K Money, Sahara Minor, Sahara Super and Sahara 4DS, Sahara Q Shop Plan H was presented at the very beginning of this Scheme Chart. This Scheme Chart gave the alleged LBP (Loyalty Bonus Point) redemption value after a period of 6 years. It said that a sum of Rs. 1000 will have a LBP redemption value of Rs. 2354, while Rs. 2000 will have a redemption value of Rs. 4709 and the rest was given in the same proportion. A copy of the Scheme Chart is being presented as Annexure No 3.

7.     That the next date, on 26/10/2012 (Friday), the petitioner No 1 sent Sri Jaya Prakash Kanaujia and Sri Syed Shabbar Raza to Aliganj branch of the Sahara Q shop office to get one “bond” each for petitioner No 1 and 2 after depositing a sum of Rs. 1000 each.

8.      That Sri Kanaujia and Sri Shabbar Raza brought the above mentioned two “bonds” and on coming back from Sahara Q shop, Sri Kanaujia and Sri Shabbar Raza presented a small report before petitioner No 1 where they said- “आपने मुझे दिनांक 26/10/2012 को दो फार्म भरकर रू0 1000/- 1000/- के दिये थे जिसमे एक फार्म में आपका नाम तथा दूसरे में डा0 नूतन ठाकुर का नाम अंकित था. उक्त दोनों फार्मों को जमा करने हेतु मैं व आरक्षी श्री शब्बर रजा गया था. उक्त दोनों फार्मों को मैने सेक्टर कार्यालय अलीगंज में जमा किया है. मैने सहारा इण्डिया लि0 अलीगंज लखनऊ के शाखा प्रबन्धक श्री काजी सरफराज अहमद से जानकारी की तो उन्होंने बताया कि रू0 1000/- छः साल में लगभग 2335/- मिलेगा और जो समान क्रय करेंगे उसका पैसा अलग से देना पड़ेगा. मुझे प्रबन्धक द्वारा जो रसीद दी गयी है जिसमे छः साल में रू0 2335/- के लगभग हो जायेगा जो रसीद में अंकित नहीं है. मैने इस सम्बन्ध में प्रबन्धक से पूछा तो उन्होंने बताया कि सर्टीफिकेट बाद में मिलेगा जिसमें अंकित होगा कि छः साल में लगभग रू0 2335/- मिलेगा”  (meaning thereby that though it has not been so written anywhere in the “bond”, the Branch Manager at Aliganj sector office said that the amount of Rs. 1000 would become Rs. 2335 after a period of 6 years). A copy of these reports by Sri J P Kanaujia and Sri Shabbar Raza is being attached as Annexure No 4.

9.     That unlike what was told to the petitioners orally and through the so-called Scheme Chart of Sahara India Parivar, the Sahara Q shop bonds/advances, as bought by the two petitioners, have been presented as Advance for Q Shop Goods Plan H. Among the General Terms and conditions, it says- “Under Q shop plan H, you are paying an advance for buying complete range of goods of our company chosen from our brochures.” It also says-“Joining amount- global advance of minimum of Rs. 1000- for buying complete range of goods but there will be no interest ever on advance amount. Plan Period 6.5 years (See redemption of LBP clause).” It talks of “adjustment of advance: 3.5% to 1.5% of your purchase amount will be adjusted from your advance (Please refer the chart)” and “Loyalty Bonus Points: You will get LBPs on your purchases. The benefit of LBP may vary as per the advance given by you and also on the quantum of purchase of different kinds of Goods (please refer the chart given) where LBP on each item is given on every one rupee purchase of that item along with the chart of eligibility of LBPs, as per the advance amount”.  A copy of the General terms and conditions is being attached as Annexure No 5.

10.                       That at the end it says-“Those terms and conditions shall be governed by the laws of India.”

11.                       That for those two are buying these Bonds, it writes-“All terms and conditions have been explained in the language known to me and I am giving full consent for the terms and conditions mentioned above.”

12.                       That another notable fact was that while the petitioners had bought the Sahara Q Shop bonds on 26/10/2012, the bonds carried a previous date, i.e., 22/10/2012.

13.                       That thus the petitioner realized that these Sahara Q shop advance/bonds are being sold in a completely different manner, presenting entirely different facts to the investors vis-a-vis what has been said on the “General Terms and Conditions”.

14.                        That it was this situation that the petitioners No 1 and 2 found extremely disturbing and problem-some, where while the Scheme Chart and the oral assurances of the Sahara Q Shop employees talked of fixed returns in a particular given manner, the general terms and conditions talked of entirely different things.

15.                       That a few days before this, the order dated 31/08/2012 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sahara India Real Estate Company vs SEBI & others in Civil Appeal No. 9833 of 2011 was announced which ordered the Sahara conglomerate to refund to the investors at 15% interest more than $3 billion it had raised from millions of small investors through Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited, reaffirming an order from the SEBI, which had said the process violated rules.

16.                       That the Hon’ble Supreme Court generally upheld the order of SEBI dated 23/06/2011 which came to the conclusion that Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs, for short) issued by the above two companies would come within the definition of “securities” as defined under Section 2(h) of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, which had found that the OFCDs issued, by definition, design and characteristics intrinsically and essentially, were debentures and the Saharas had designed the OFCDs to invite subscription from the public at large through their agents, private offices and information memorandum and that OFCDs issued were in fact public issues and the Saharas were bound to comply with Section 73 of the Companies Act, in compliance with the parameters provided by the first proviso to Section 67(3) of the Companies Act. Thus the Hon’ble Supreme Court endorsed the view taken by SEBI in its order dated 23/06/2011 that OFCDs issued by Saharas should have been listed on a recognized stock exchange and ought to have followed the disclosure requirement and other investors' protection norms.

17.                       That in the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court said-““85. The first proviso to Section 67(3) was inserted by the companies (Amendment) Act, 2000 w.e.f. 13/12/2000, which clearly indicates, nothing contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 67 shall apply in a case where the offer or invitation to subscribe for shares or debentures is made to fifty persons or more. Resultantly, after 13/12/2000, any offer of securities by a public company to fifty persons or more will be treated as a public issue under the Companies Act, even if it is of domestic concern or it is proved that the shares or debentures are not available for subscription or purchase by persons other than those receiving the offer or invitation.”

18.                       That the Hon’ble Supreme Court made it very clear-“Company's option, choice, election, interest or design does not matter, it is the conduct and action that matters and that is what the law demands. Law judges not what is in their minds but what they have said or written or done” and that- “Once the number forty nine is crossed, the proviso to Section 67(3) kicks in and it is an issue to the public, which attracts Section 73(1) and an application for listing becomes mandatory which fall under the administration of SEBI under Section 55A(1)(b) of the Companies Act.”

19.                       That most importantly the Hon’ble Supreme Court also said-“Court can, in such circumstances, lift the veil to examine the conduct and method adopted by Saharas to defeat the various provisions of the Companies Act, already discussed, read with the provisions of the SEBI Act.”

20.                       That section 67(3) in the Companies Act, 1956 says-“No offer or invitation shall be treated as made to the public by virtue of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, if the offer or invitation can properly be regarded, in all the circumstances - (a) as not being calculated to result, directly or indirectly, in the shares or debentures becoming available for subscription or purchase by persons other than those receiving the offer or invitation ; or (b) otherwise as being a domestic concern of the persons making and receiving the offer or invitation : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply in a case where the offer or invitation to subscribe for shares or debentures is made to fifty persons or more : Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply to the non-banking financial companies or public financial institutions specified in section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).”

21.                       That similarly section 73(1) in the Companies Act, 1956 says-“(1) Every company intending to offer shares or debentures to the public for subscription by the issue of a prospectus shall, before such issue, make an application to one or more recognised stock exchanges for permission for the shares or debentures intending to be so offered to be dealt with in the stock exchange or each such stock exchange.”

22.                       That there is also section 55A of the Companies Act, 1956 - “Powers of Securities and Exchange Board of India.— The provisions contained in sections 55 to 58, 59 to 81, (including Sections 68A, 77A and 80A)108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 206, 206A and 207, so far as they relate to issue and transfer of securities and non-payment of dividend shall,—(a) in case of listed public companies; (b) in case of those public companies which intend to get their securities listed on any recognized stock exchange in India, be administered by the Securities and Exchange Board of India; and (c) in any other case, be administered by the Central Government. This section 55A was inserted in the Act by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2000 w.e.f. 13/12/2000.”

23.                       That all these measures have been taken for the sole reason of investor protection, as stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above order-“60. I find all the above quoted provisions are inter-related and inter-connected and the main focus is on Investor Protection.”

24.                       That since the act of the Sahara Q Shop in getting money aggregated through Sahara Q shop bonds/advances by saying something orally and through Scheme Chart and presenting something else in the “General Terms and Conditions” seemed to be very similar to what happened in the case of the OFCDs of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited, where this time again Sahara India seemed to be collecting money from a very large number of investors, including the two petitioners, through the so-called Consumer products network, Sahara Q Shop where it was making the investors believe through its large network of around 10 lakh agents, stationed in more than 2900 branch offices, all over the country that they would be getting a good return through their investment in Sahara Q shop and thus Sahara India was preferring this circuitous and round-about way to raise and collect public money in the garb of getting advance from the customers for buying a complete range of goods where one thing was being told and another written on Terms and conditions, the petitioners sent a representation dated 06/11/2012 to the Chairman, SEBI along with others including the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, the Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi and the Registrar of Companies (ROC), Mumbai to enquire into and take all the appropriate and necessary actions in this case as regards the company orally saying and assuring a return of Rs. 2335 on every investment/bond/purchase of Rs. 1000 bond/coupon/customer copy and presenting a Scheme Chart of like nature while saying in the “General Terms and Conditions” of its customer copy-“ Global Advance of minimum of Rs. 1000 for buying complete range of goods but there will be no interest ever on advance amount” and thus trying to bye-pass the authority of various regulatory authorities, including SEBI, the RBI, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and whosoever else is concerned.

25.                       That when nothing happened in this case, the petitioners sent another representation dated 12/12/2012 to all these authorities.

26.                       That the petitioners got a reply from SEBI through letter dated 22/01/2013 from Sri J Shandilya, AGM, Special Enforcement Cell which remained completely silent as regards the issue of violation by Sahara Q Shop in collecting money through circuitous route. Hence the petitioners sent another letter to SEBI dated 01/02/2013 to look into this matter. But so far no enquiry has been initiated by SEBI in this matter.

27.                       That the petitioners got another reply from Assistant Registrar of Companies, Kanpur dated 21/12/2012 which directed the Sahara India Real Estate Corp Ltd to furnish a parawise clarification/explanation directly to the petitioners as regards these allegations raised by the petitioners along with documentary proof within 10 days of date of this letter. The letter had said that in case the Company fails to provide the parawise clarification/explanation within the stipulated date, necessary penal action under relevant provisions of Companies Act shall be initiated against the company and its directors. The petitioners have not got any reply to this letter sent by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, Kanpur till date despite having sent them a letter dated 01/02/201.

28.                       That the petitioners got a letter dated 15/04/2013 from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Government of India which said that they sent the petitioners’ complaint dated 06/11/2012 to the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh on 30/11/2012 asking him to investigate the matter and take appropriate action and to send to an action taken report in the matter. To this the petitioners sent a letter dated 26/04/2013 to the Chief Secretary, UP to take necessary action in the matter but no action seems to have been initiated so far. A copy of the reply from SEBI, Assistant Registrar of Companies and Ministry of Consumer Affairs is being attached as Annexure No 6.

29.                       That thus as things stand today, the complaint dated 06/11/2012 by the petitioners has been moving from one office to another. SEBI, Registrar of Companies and Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Ministry of Consumer Affairs have already responded to the petitioners in various ways but none of them have looked into the primary issue- that of floating of Sahara Q Shop bonds and collecting public money, including that of the petitioners, in different garb, despite a disaster already happening in the case of Sahara Real Estate and Sahara Housing where the Hon’ble Supreme Court very clearly stated that the money that was being collected as OFCD was nothing but public money and it needed to be collected only by properly following the norms and laws of the land and not in a circuitous manner by flouting laws. This certainly jeopardizes the petitioners’ interests, who feel aggrieved by this inaction on the part of the various respondents.

30.                       That as explained in some details in above Para, it seems to the petitioners that the matter shall prima-facie fall in the domain of SEBI, respondent No 1 to whom the representation was marked. But if it is not SEBI, then there definitely needs to be some other government body who shall be responsible for the matter being presented. Hence the petitioners sent their representation not only to SEBI but also to the Ministry of Company Affairs (which has Registrar of Companies as its subordinate office) and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. The irony is that all these public authorities come as being least interested in the matter and thus the matter has not been enquired into so far, thereby putting the petitioners’ interest in lurch.

31.                       That thus as explained in great details in the above Para, no action having been taken for the last 10 months, the petitioners are left with no other option than to approach the Hon’ble Court with this Writ Petition to ask for certain prayers because of the reasons being stated among the Grounds as enumerated below.

32.                       That the petitioner’s photograph and Identity proof has been enclosed along with.

GROUNDS

(1) Because the petitioners have bought one bond/advance receipt of Rs. 1000 each from Sahara Q Shop

(2) Because the petitioners were told by the authorities of Sahara Q Shop that they would get a return of Rs. 2335 on a Rs. 1000 bond after a period of six years

(3) Because the petitioners were also provided a Scheme Chart of Sahara India parivar which said that the LBP redemption value/return of Rs. 1000 would be Rs. 2354 after a period of 6 years.

(4) Because the General Terms and Conditions of the Sahara Q Shop bonds stated things which were quite different from that being told orally and through the Scheme Chart

(5) Because to the best of the petitioners’ information, the Sahara Q Shop have not been listed in any of Security Exchanges

(6) Because despite not being listed in the Security Exchange, Sahara Q Shop seems to be collecting public money, including that of the petitioners

(7) Because this collection of public money without being listed in a Security Exchange seems to be against the law of the land

(8) Because the petitioners sent a representation dated 06/11/2012 to various respondents to enquire into the matters

(9) Because no enquiry has so far taken place in the representation sent by the petitioners

(10)             Because every authority seems to be passing the buck to the others and no one seems willing to look into the central issue- that of collecting public money without listing into any Stock exchange and by presenting incorrect facts

(11)             Because this the petitioners interest seems to be getting adversely affected

(12)             Because in a similar matter related with Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited, the Hon’ble Supreme Court through its order dated 31/08/2012 had come down very heavily on the two companies and had also directed that even the corporate veil can be penetrated to save the interests of the investors.

(13)             Because the complete inaction on the part of the various respondents has left the petitioners with no other option than to approach this Hon’ble Court

PRAYER

Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to-

(a)             Issue a writ of mandamus to direct the concerned respondents to immediately enquire into the matters presented by the petitioners in their representation dated 06/11/2012 presented to the Chairman, Securities and Exchange Board of India and others (Annexure No 1) and in the present Writ Petition as regards the suspected/alleged improprieties in the two Sahara Q Shop Bond/Advances (Annexure No 2) dated 22/10/2012 issued by Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Respondent No 5 and to take appropriate legal action accordingly, so as to safeguard the petitioners’ interests

(b)            issue any other order in the interest of the petitioners as this Hon’ble Court deems fit

Lucknow                                                                 Dr Nutan Thakur
Dated- 05/09/2013                                           Petitioner in Person                                                                                                        # 94155-34525

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No-              of 2013 (M/B- Civil)

Amitabh and Nutan Thakur                                         Petitioners

Versus

SEBI and others                                                                Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Nutan Thakur, aged about 40 years, w/o Sri Amitabh Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, religion Hinduism, education- P Hd, D Litt, profession- Social activist and journalist, the deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under-

1.     That the deponent is the petitioner No 2 in the above noted petition and as such she is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, deposed to hereunder. She also declares that she has been given the authority and consent by the petitioner No 1 to file this Writ Petition, along with this Affidavit.

2.     That the contents of the paragraphs 1                                                                     of the Writ petition are true to my personal knowledge,                                            based on documents and records and                                                   believed to be true or are based on legal advice.

3.     That the Annexure No 1 to   are the true copy of the original.

Place Lucknow                                                                  (Nutan Thakur)

Date-     05/09/2013                                                      Deponent

VERIFICATION

I, the deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 above this Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed. So, help me God

Signed and verified this the                             day of                                    2013  at Lucknow

Deponent

Identification

I identify the deponent, on the basis of records produced before me, who has signed before me.

                                    Advocate

Solemnly affirmed me on                                 at                                am/pm by the deponent Nutan Thakur, who has been identified by Sri                              clerk to Sri                                                                                                                                       , Advocate, high court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that she understands the contents of this Affidavit which have been read over and explained to him by me

                                                                                    Oath Commissioner