INDE X

S.No. Particulars Page No.

1. Listing Performa

2. Synopsis & List of Dates

3. Writ Petition with Affidavit.

4. ANNEXURE P-1 :
True copy of the order dated 1.2.2017

5. ANNEXURE P-2 :

True copy of the letter dated 7.3.2017 of RBI

6. ANNEXURE P-3 :

A true copy of gazette notification vide its no.2652

dated 08.11.2016 published in Gazette of India

7. ANNEXURE P-4:
A true copy of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of
Liability) Ordinance 2016 dated 30.12.2016
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
[UNDER Order XXXVIII of SCR, 2013]

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.124 OF 2017

BETWEEN

Abhishek Shukla … Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors. … Respondents

(PAPER BOOK)

Kindly See the Index Inside

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: ABHINAV RAMKRISHNA

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
[UNDER Order XXXVIII of SCR, 2013]

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.124 OF 2017

BETWEEN

Abhishek Shukla … Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors. … Respondents

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

(The Special Leave Petition is within limitation)

(SECTION OFFICER)
 PROCEEDINGS SHEET

S. No. Date of Proceedings Pages

1. .

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
[UNDER Order XXXVIII of SCR, 2013]

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.124 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF :
Shri Abhishek Shukla
14, D.N. Singh Road
Opposite Dena Bank
Khalifabag, Bhagalpur
Jagdishpur, Bihar-812001. … Petitioner

VERSUS

1. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Economic Affairs,
Room No.67-B,
New Delhi-110001.

2. Ministry of Law & Justice

Through its Secretary
Ministry of Law and Justice
4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi-110001.

3. The Governor
Reserve Bank of India
Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001. … .. Respondents

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSAUNACE OF
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO THE
RESPONDENTS TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO
DEPOSIT HIS SPECIFIED BANK NOTES OF 500/- AND
 1000 AT THE OFFICES OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
WITH HIS EXPLANATION FOR NOT DEPOSITING THE
SAME BEFORE 30.12.2016 WHERBY SETTING ASIDE
THE LETTER NO.ND.ID.(RES.) NO.3276/04.00.001/2016-17
DATED 7.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT

To

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India

and His Companion Judges of the
Supreme Court of India.

The Writ Petition of the petitioner

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH : -

1. Petitioner is compelled to file the present writ petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of

Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction

for quashing and setting aside the Ordinance dated 30th

December 2016 issued by the respondent no.1 as it is

contrary to the earlier Notification dated 8.11.2016 in the

wake of demonetization which has directly affected the

petitioner as he was not able to deposit her specified Bank

notes of 500/- and 1000 on or before 30.12.2016.

1a The petitioner had personally visited the RBI Office, Delhi,

however the respondent no.3/ RBI declined to old specified

notes contrary to earlier notification dated 8.11.2016.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW : -

The following substantial questions of law arise for

kind consideration of this Hon’ble Court: -

i) Whether the ordinance dated 30.12.2016 published by

the respondent no.2 is contrary to the notification

dated 08.11.2016 and to the speech of Hon’ble Prime

Minister dated 08.11.2016, which has introduced the

system of demonetization or note ?

ii) Whether the ordinance dated 30.12.2016 published by

the respondent no.2 fulfills the criteria of legitimate

expectation of citizen of India being completely

contradictory of earlier notification dated 08.11.2016

and of speech of Prime Minister ?

iii) Whether the ordinance dated 30.12.2016 creates class

among the classes and is in complete violation of

Article 14 of Constitution of India and also in

contravention of Article 21 of Constitution of India as

it provides for Criminal actions which regulates the

right to life with dignity or not ?

3. The brief facts and circumstances giving rise to the present

petition may briefly be enumerated as hereunder :-

i) That petitioner was made a co-accused in an FIR bearing

No.20/ 2013 P.S. Special Cell, New Delhi.

ii) That in the said FIR case the petitioner moved an application

seeking discharge before the Ld. Trial Court and vide order

dated 25.7.2015 the Ld.Trial Court honourably discharged

the petitioner from all the charges. As such the petitioner

was exonerated from the criminal proceedings.

iii) It is pertinent to state here that a sum of Rs.5.5 lacs were

seized from the petitioner vide seizure memo dated

25.9.2013.

iv) It is submitted that the said amount was released to the

petitioner pursuant to the order dated 1.2.2017 by the

Investigation Officer. True copy of the order dated 1.2.2017

is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-1.

v) That thereafter the petitioner approached the Reserve Bank

of India for exchange of old currency notes in view of

demonetization of the old currency notes by the Union of

India.

vi) That RBI vide letter dated 7.3.2017 declined the request of

the petitioner to change the currency notes by citing the

reason that RBI does not have any power to accept SBNs for

deposit / exchange – except from tenderers as permitted to

avail the facility during grace periods (Indian Citizens who

were outside India between Nov. 9 2016 to Dec. 30, 2016).

 True copy of the letter dated 7.3.2017 is annexed herewith as

ANNEXURE P-2.

vii) The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India has announced in his

address to the nation on November 8, 2016, on the national

network, Doordarshan, Akashwani and other mediums of

telecommunications about the withdrawal of legal tender of

Specified bank Notes of 500 and 1000 and gave time till 30th

December 2016 to deposit the old currency notes with the

banks. However, in the same speech the Hon’ble PM also

stated that ‘any’ person who is not able to deposit the said

money or exchange the same in a bank would have the

option to do so with the specified office of Reserve Bank of

India till 31.3.2017.

viii) That after announcement of above news by the Hon’ble

Prime Minister of India, respondent no.1 has published a

gazette notification vide its no.2652 dated 08.11.2016 in

Gazette of India Clause 2(ix0 of that notification states that

any person who is unable to exchange or deposit the

specified bank notes in their bank accounts on or before the

30th December, 2016, shall be given an opportunity to do so

at specified offices of the Reserve Bank or such other facility

until a later date as may be specified by it. A true copy of

gazette notification vide its no.2652 dated 08.11.2016

 published in Gazette of India is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE P-3 at pages No. to ….

ix) That the citizen of the country has faced many issues while

depositing currency of denomination of Rs.500/- and 1000/-

in bank due to long queue in their banks. Old persons and

ladies were faced many problems to deposit as they had not

being provided special mechanism to facilitate the deposit.

x) That Legislative Department of the Ministry of Law and

Justice came out with the Specified Bank Notes (Ceasation

of Liability) Ordinance, 2016 which irrationally created a

separate class of Non Resident Indians and people not in

India till 30th of December and reserved only for them the

right to deposit the Specified Bank Notes with the Reserve

Bank of India. A true copy of Specified Bank Notes

(Cessation of Liability) Ordinance 2016 dated 30.12.2016 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-4 at pages

… to …

xi) That the Ministry of Finance Government of India has

published circular No.60/ 2016 in which the dates of

deposition of money has been highlighted as 31.3.2017 for

those citizens who were not in India between 09.11.2016 to

30.12.2016.

xii) The petitioner came across various news reports published in

newspaper and shown on different news channels that

 common people protested outside the Reserve Bank of India

office at Fort on Tuesday 4th of January 2017 after the

respondent no.1 RBI refused to exchange and accept

demonetized currency notes of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500, citing

a December 30th Ordinance which ended the RBI’s liability

on these notes.

4. The petitioner has not filed any other similar petition seeking

similar relief before this Hon’ble Court or any other High Court.

5. The petitioner has got no other alternate or efficacious

remedy except to file the present writ petition before this Hon’ble

Court by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The

petitioner is filing the present writ petition on the following

amongst other Grounds without prejudice to each other :-

GROUNDS : -

A. Because the impugned letter dated 7.3.2017 issued by the

RBI/ Respondent no.3 whereby declining the request of the

petitioner to issue new currency notes in lieu of the old

currency notes, is bad in law and facts.

B. The respondents by the acts and conducts are violating the

fundamental rights granted to the petitioner

C. Because in terms of Section 4(1) of the Specified Bank Notes

(Cessation of Liabilities) Ordinance, 2016 of the Government

of India dated December 30, 2016 and their Notification S.O.

4251(E) dated December 30, 2016 thereunder, the captioned

facility has been formulated by the Reserve Bank to afford an

opportunity to those Indian Citizens who could not avail

facilities of exchange of SBNs under the earlier facility, as

they were not present in the country during November 9,

2016 to December, 30, 2016. As such when the Reserve

bank of India has given an opportunity to the said category of

people, why not the petitioner may be given an opportunity

as the entire amount of Rs.5.5 lacs was confiscated by Delhi

Police and the said amount was lying in the malkhana

without any default on the part of the petitioner. Even

otherwise, it was the responsibility of Delhi Police as the

amount was lying in Malkhana.

D. Because the last notification issued by the Government is a

breach of assurance given by the Prime Minister and by the

Respondent no.3/ RBI. As P.M. speech on 9.11.2016,

announcing the demonetization policy, and a subsequent

notification that promised that people would be able to

deposit the old notes till March 31, 2017. As such, the said

fact of Government was against the legitimate expectation

that certain categories of people had with the Government

 and the same was not unfounded as being based on

Government’s own notification. And in ordinance in

December 2016, the Government has failed to mention about

it.

E. Because the ordinance dated 30.12.2016 published by the

respondent no.2 is contrary to the notification dated

08.11.2016 and to the speech of Hon’ble Prime Minister

dated 08.11.2016.

F. Because the ordinance dated 30.12.2016 published by the

respondent no.2 does not fulfills the criteria of legitimate

expectation of citizen of India being completely

contradictory of earlier notification dated 08.11.2016 and of

speech of Prime Minister.

G. Because the ordinance dated 30.12.2016 creates class among

the classes and is in complete violation of Article 14 of

Constitution of India and also in contravention of Article 21

of Constitution of India as it provides for Criminal actions

which regulates the right to life with dignity.

H. Because the Ordinance dated 30.12.2016 is contrary to the

earlier Notification dated 8th November 2016 and hence

people are facing many day to day problems and it with

unambiguous certainty is a blatant violation of their rights. It

is needed that the Government authorities together need to

clarify with clarify as to what shall be followed and which

 currency notes shall be honoured and considered as legal

tender.

I. Because the incident is a breach of trust in a larger sense

committed by the Government of India and its governing

arms as they issued a Notification dated 8th November 2016

which had assured the people that if on account of some

reason, any person who is unable to exchange or deposit the

specified bank notes in their bank accounts on or before the

30th December, 2016, shall be given an opportunity to do so

at specified offices of the Reserve Bank or such other facility

until a later date as may be specified by it. A similar

statement was made by the Prime Minister of India in his

address to Nation while declaring the decision of

demonetization on 8th of November 2016.

J. Because the respondents are collectively liable for destroying

the legitimate expectation of the public at large. The

constitutional principle of rule of law, which runs through the

entire fabric of our Constitution, requires regularity,

predictability and certainty in the Government’s dealings

with the public. In Supreme Court Advocates –on – Record

Association Vs. Union of India : (1993) 4 SCC 441 at page

703; the Supreme Court has taken the view that due

consideration of every legitimate expectation of the public in

the decision-making process is a requirement of the rule of

 non-arbitrariness. However, the prevailing scenario has

shaken the confidence of the public in the Government,

which has taken the ordinance route to go back on its

guarantee failing to live up to the standard of governance

envisaged in a democracy, which requires adherence to the

rule of law. Recently, in Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs.

State of Bihar & Ors., The Supreme Court placed restrictions

on the powers of the Government to legislate through

ordinances to avoid blatant misuse of the Constitutional

power.

K. Because the action of the respondents is violation of the

principles of natural justice and are totally malafide, arbitrary

and illegal.

L. Because there is violation of Article 14&21 of the

constitution of India and there is discrimination against the

petitioner. That the petitioner aggrieved of the totally

arbitrary and illegal actions of the respondents is constrained

to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of the present

petition.

PRAYER : -
 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most

respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be

pleased to : -

a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ

order or direction to quash and set aside the Ordinance

dated 30th December 2016 issued by the respondent no.1

as it is contrary to the earlier Notification dated 8.11.2016

AND / OR

b) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order including a

writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus

commanding the respondents herein to forbear from

giving effect to the ordinance dated 30th December 2016.

c) Pass such order and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of

the present case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER

SHALL EVER REMAIN BOUND TO PRAY

Filed by

(Abhinav Ramkrishna)
Advocate-on-Record
Advocate for the Petitioner

DRAWN ON: .03.2017

FILED ON: .03.2017
 PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
Section –IVB

The Case pertains to (Please tick/ check the correct box)

Central Act: (Title): NA

Section : NA

Central Rule : NA

Rule No(s) - N/A

State Act; (Title) – N.A.

Section – N.A.

State Rule : (Title) N.A.

Rule No.(s) – N.A.

Impugned Interim Order (Date) – N/A

Impugned Final order/ Decree : (Date) NA

High Court: (Name): NA

Names of Judges: NA

Tribunal/ Authority (Name): N.A.

1. Nature of matter : Civil

2. (a) Petitioner – Abhishek Shukla
(b) e-mail ID N.A.
(c) Mobile Ph.No. N.A.

3. (a) Respondent – Union of India & Ors.

(b) e-mail ID: N.A.
(c) Mobile Phone No. – N.A.

4. (a) Main Category Classification : N.A.

(b) Sub Classification – N.A.
5. Not to be listed before : N.A.
6. Similar/ Pending matter – N.A.
7. Criminal matters –
a) Whether accused/ convict has surrendered- NA
b) FIR No. - N.A.
 c) Police Station – N.A.
d) Sentence Awarded – N.A.
e) Sentence Undergone – N.A.
8. Land Acquisition Matters.
a) Date of Section 4 Notification – N.A.
b) Date of Section 6 Notification – N.A.
c) Date of Section 17 notification – N.A.

9. Tax matters: State the tax effect – N.A.

10. Special Category (First petitioner/ appellant only) N.A.
11. Vehicle Number (in case of motor Accident Claim matters): N.A.
12. Decided cases with citation :

Dated : .03.2017

Advocate for the petitioner

 LIST OF DATES & EVENTS

Petitioner is compelled to file the present writ petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of

Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for

quashing and setting aside the Ordinance dated 30th December 2016

issued by the respondent no.1 as it is contrary to the earlier

Notification dated 8.11.2016 in the wake of demonetization which

has directly affected the petitioner as he was not able to deposit her

specified Bank notes of 500/- and 1000 on or before 30.12.2016.

The petitioner is constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court

by way of present writ petition under Article 32 of Constitution of

India instead of exhausting the remedy under Article 226 of

Constitution of India in light of order dated 16.12.2016 passed by

this Hon’ble Court in the case of Vivek Narayan Sharma vs. Union

of India (WP © 906 of 2016). Relevant paragraph of the order

dated 16.12.2016 is reproduced herein.

“We further direct that no other court shall entertain, hear or

decide any writ petition/ proceedings on the issue or in
relation to or arising from the decision of the Government of
India to demonetize the old notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/-
as the entire issue in relation thereto is pending consideration
before this Court in the present proceedings”.
2013 The petitioner was made a co-accused in an FIR

bearing No.20/ 2013 P.S. Special Cell, New Delhi.

In the said FIR case the petitioner moved an

application seeking discharge before the Ld. Trial

Court.

25.7.2015 Vide order dated 25.7.2015 the Ld.Trial Court

honourably discharged the petitioner from all the

charges. As such the petitioner was exonerated from

the criminal proceedings.

25.9.2013 A sum of Rs.5.5 lacs were seized from the petitioner

vide seizure memo dated 25.9.2013.

8.11.2016 The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India has announced in

his address to the nation on November 8, 2016, on the

national network, Doordarshan, Akashwani and other

mediums of telecommunications about the withdrawal

of legal tender of Specified bank Notes of 500 and

1000 and gave time till 30th December 2016 to deposit

the old currency notes with the banks. However, in the

same speech the Hon’ble PM also stated that ‘any’

person who is not able to deposit the said money or

exchange the same in a bank would have the option to

do so with the specified office of Reserve Bank of

 India till 31.3.2017. That after announcement of

above news by the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India,

respondent no.1 has published a gazette notification

vide its no.2652 dated 08.11.2016 in Gazette of India

Clause 2(ix) of that notification states that any person

who is unable to exchange or deposit the specified

bank notes in their bank accounts on or before the 30th

December, 2016, shall be given an opportunity to do

so at specified offices of the Reserve Bank or such

other facility until a later date as may be specified by

it.

30.12.2016 The Legislative Department of the Ministry of Law

and Justice came out with the Specified Bank Notes

(Ceasation of Liability) Ordinance, 2016 which

irrationally created a separate class of Non Resident

Indians and people not in India till 30th of December

and reserved only for them the right to deposit the

Specified Bank Notes with the Reserve Bank of India.

The Ministry of Finance Government of India

has published circular No.60/ 2016 in which the dates

of deposition of money has been highlighted as

31.3.2017 for those citizens who were not in India

between 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016.

1.2.2017 The said amount was released to the petitioner

pursuant to the order dated 1.2.2017 by the

Investigation Officer.

2017 Thereafter the petitioner approached the Reserve Bank

of India for exchange of old currency notes in view of

demonetization of the old currency notes by the Union

of India.

7.3.2017 The RBI vide letter dated 7.3.2017 declined the

request of the petitioner to change the currency notes

by citing the reason that RBI does not have any power

to accept SBNs for deposit / exchange - except from

tenderers as permitted to avail the facility during grace

periods (Indian Citizens who were outside India

between Nov. 9 2016 to Dec. 30, 2016).

.03.2017 Hence the instant Writ Petition.

New Delhi
Dated : .03.2017