W.P.(C)--961/2015. Case: SHRI RAJNIKANT Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--961/2015 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | February 02, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and Order: 2nd February 2015
+ W.P.(C) 961/2015
SHRI RAJNIKANT
..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate
versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR
..... Respondents Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Additional
Standing Counsel with Ms.Bandana Shukla, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
O R D E R % 02.02.2015 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
C.M. Appl. No. 1696/2015 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P. (C) No. 961/2015
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
India, petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order dated
passed in O.A. No. 2920/2011 by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the
Application filed by the petitioner on the ground that on the
carried out by the Inspector, Crime Branch, the Additional Commissioner
Police had intimated that the driving license which was produced
W.P. (C) No. 961/2015 Page 1
petitioner was issued in the name of Ms. Nlangnelholh daughter
Liankholal Gante and therefore the same was a fake driving licence.
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an inconsistent report
submitted by the District Transport Authority Manipur and in a
report dated 19.5.2010, it was reported by the same Authority that
licence of the petitioner was genuine. The learned counsel for the
further submits that the report dated 19.5.2010 issued by the same
was also placed on record and therefore the same could not be
by the learned Tribunal just because of a subsequent report submitted by the
Crime Branch. He also submits that the petitioner had filed an
under the RTI Act with a request to the said Transport Authority to
the particulars of the licence which was issued by them in favour
petitioner and vide reply dated 12.1.2012, the said authority had
certified the genuineness of the petitioner’s licence. Counsel for
petitioner, thus submits that in the background of these facts the
passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the original application
by the petitioner is illegal and perverse on the very face of it. The
counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was also
supplied with any report of the said Transport Authority alongwith
Cause Notice served upon him and thus there was a serious infraction
principles of natural justice on the part of the respondents in not
available the said report of the Transport Authority which formed the
of the said Show Cause Notice itself.
2. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for
petitioner and also gone through the impugned order as well as the
W.P. (C) No. 961/2015 Page 2
placed on record.
3. In the batch of many such petitions, the common challenge raised
that these candidates were found to be in possession of fake driving licenses
purported to have been issued in their favour by the respective
Authorities. The common grievance raised by these petitioners was
before taking a decision to cancel their candidature the respondents ought to
have conducted a detailed inquiry so as to give sufficient opportunity
these applicants to participate in the same and thereafter could have
at a just and fair decision on the validity and genuineness of the
licences produced by them. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial