Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
DY. GENERAL MANAGER,REDESIGNATED AS DY. DIRECTOR, ISB ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SUDARSHAN KUMARI & ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/04/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1894 1996 SCC (3) 763
JT 1996 (4) 243 1996 SCALE (3)551
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 9464 OF 1995
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This case is a misuse of the compassionate grounds on
which leave and licence is sought to be granted to the
widows of the freedom figther. The appellant had granted to
the first respondent leave and licence on May 15, 1992 the
shop pales Counter) bearing No.’H’ at Interstate Bus
Terminal at a concessional rate of 54 of the licence fee. It
is not necessary to go into the allegation regarding her
encroachment and misuse of the shop allotted in the, name of
the respondent. An application was filed on March 21, 1994
for renewal of the leave and licence, which is now found to
be not signed by the respondent A show cause notice was
issued on 6.5.1994 to the respondent asking her to hand over
vacant possession of the counter on 6.6.1994.
A writ petition No.2483/94 was filed in the High Court
of Delhi on 23.5.1994 for restraining the appellant from
ejecting her and issue a direction to renew her leave and
licence. The affidavit filed by the respondent in the High
Court was not even signed by her. When the notice was issued
to the appellants (herein), the appellants filed a counter-
affidavit on October 24, 1994 informing the High Court of
Delhi of the forgery committed in the pleadings and also her
application for renewal. The Court has called upon the
respondent to appeal before the Court on 2.11.1994 but she
did not appear. Ultimately, the respondent appeared on
November 15, 1994. The Court has taken her signatures in the
open Court and compared with the signatures on the
Vakalatnama and affidavits and found to be not consistent
with her admitted signatures. At that time, the respondent
had sought permission for withdrawal of the writ petition
with the liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause
of action. Accordingly, liberty was granted vide order dated
November 15, 1994. Thus this appeal by special leave We are
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
informed that possession of the Koasko was taken .
The respondent also filed a connected appeal seeking
for renewal of the licence. The question, therefore, that
emerges is: whether the respondent is entitled to the
renewal of the leave and licence and whether liberty to
withdraw the writ petition was appropriately granted by the
High Court? In the rejoinder filed in this Court it is
admitted position that she did not sign the rejoinder also.
Somebody seems to have signed it on her behalf and attested
by a Notary. This is the third case where the Court has come
across that the Notaries have been misusing the liberty
given to them by issuing such false attestations and
indiscriminately attesting the affidavits to be filed by
some party who have not been properly identified. We have
seen original rejoinder affidavit filed in the Court. They
have approached one Notary who had initially attested it and
later he had cancelled it without even verifying the valid
ground on which the earlier attestation came to be
cancelled, same was again attested by one Sunder sham Kumar
on November 1, 1994. In view of the admitted position that
she herself had not signed and- asked someone who had signed
it, it would obvious that the person who had signed before
him was not the respondent nor even the person was known to
the Notary. None identified her before the Notary, yet he
attested the affidavit. This would show that some Notaries
are absolutely misusing the licence granted to them without
any proper verification of the persons who has signed the
document and are attesting false affidavits of
impersonators.
In view of the admitted fact that her renewal
application was not signed by her, the affidavit, the
Vakalatnama were also not signed by her, it would be obvious
that she had taken the licence and assigned to someone who
had committed forgery. When we have asked Shri Goburdhan,
learned counsel for her, the name of the real person who was
actually running the shop, he has stated that the party does
not divulge the person who is running the shop.
Under these circumstances, it is clear that the
compassionate ground and the liberties given are being
abused by these persons. Therefore, the High Court was not
right in giving liberty to the respondent herein to withdraw
the writ petition and to file another writ petition on the
same cause of action. Hence C.A. No -------------/96 (@ SLP
(C) No.6122/95) is allowed and the appeal by Sudershan
Kumari C.A.--------/96 (@ SLP (C) No.9464/95 is dismissed
with costs. Registry is directed to issue a notice to the
Notary to show cause as to sundarsha Kumar why he should not
be prosecuted and punished for attesting false affidavit of
impersonators and why his licence should not be cancelled
and he should not be prosecuted for giving such false
certificates.
Post this matter immediately after service of notice on
the Notary.