Gajula Thirupathi vs The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board
- Court
- Supreme Court
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 493
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.8059 OF 2026
Arising out of SLP (C) No. 018626/2026)
(
(@Diary No. 46777/2025)
GAJULA THIRUPATHI …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE TELANGANA STATE LEVEL POLICE
RECRUITMENT BOARD AND OTHERS
…RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
FACTS
2. The appellant was provisionally selected for
appointment on the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee
Police Constable (for short SCTPC) subject to verification
of his antecedents and testimonials. In the form itself, the
appellant had made a disclosure about registration of a
1
criminal case against him in the past for offences
punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHETAN ARORA
Date: 2026.06.05
13:53:23 IST
Reason:
1
Crime No.190/2014
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 1 of 24
2
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . Basis thereof,
a show cause notice was issued to the appellant seeking
his explanation as to why his provisional selection be not
cancelled for his past involvement in an offence involving
moral turpitude. The appellant responded by submitting,
inter alia , that vide order of the Lok Adalat dated
31.08.2015 that case was compounded; therefore, the
appellant would be deemed to have been honorably
acquitted in that case by virtue of the provisions of sub-
section (8) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
3
Procedure, 1973 . However, the explanation was not
accepted, and the provisional selection was cancelled
vide
order dated 17.08.2020. Aggrieved therewith, the
appellant filed a writ petition (i.e., W.P. No. 20812 of 2020)
4
in the High Court which was allowed by the learned single
Judge, vide order dated 20.11.2020, thereby setting aside
the order of cancellation and directing the respondents to
consider the case of the appellant in terms of the law laid
2
IPC
3
CrPC
4
The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 2 of 24
Avtar Singh vs. Union of India
down by this Court in
5
and Others .
3. Pursuant to the order of the High Court dated
20.11.2020, the matter was examined afresh, and the
provisional selection of the appellant was again cancelled
vide order dated 29.01.2021. The relevant paragraphs of
the order dated 29.01.2021 are extracted below:
“4. Sri Gajula Thirupathi, (Regd. No. 1290043) has
submitted representation dated 09-12-2020. The case
of Sri Gajula Thirupathi, (Regd. No. 1290043) has been
carefully examined in the light of Hon’ble High Court’s
order dated 20-11-2020 keeping the observation made
in Avtar Singh case as follows:
5. The petitioner was involved in Cr. No. 190/2014, U/s
417, 420 and 506 r/w 34 IPC of Dharmaram PS, which
is a case of moral turpitude. The brief facts of the case
are that, Sri Gajula Thirupathi as A-1 in the Crime,
enjoyed with the victim sexually in the name of love and
promise to marry her. When the victim asked A-1 to
marry her, he postponed the matter and his parents
threatened her to kill if she asked their son to marry
her. A-1 was arrested by the Police and remanded to
Judicial Custody. A-1 got married to another woman
and cheated the victim. After completing the
investigation, the concerned Police filed Charge Sheet
dated 30-12-2014 against all the accused. While the
case was pending Trial both the parties compromised
the case vide CC No. 35/2015 before the Lok Adalat at
JFCM Court, Peddapalli on 31-05-2015.
6. It is informed that the case in which the Petitioner
was involved is a case of moral turpitude. The victim
may be prepared to settle the matter for any
consideration other than innocence of the accused, but
it did not wash off the criminal antecedents of the
accused. Entering a Police Service requires a candidate
5
(2016) 8 SCC 471
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 3 of 24
to be of character, integrity and clean antecedents.
Having regard to the nature and gravity of the
Offence/Crime in which the petitioner was involved he
is found to be unsuitable for appointment to the post of
Constable.
7. The Apex Court in Avtar Singh case at Para 38.3 held
that “The employer shall take into consideration the
Government orders/ instructions /rules applicable to
the employee at the time of taking the decision. The SCT
Rule 3 (G) (vi) of SCT Rules issued in G.O. Ms. No. 97,
Home (Legal. II) Dept, dated 01.05.2006 says that a
Person who is involved in an offence involving moral
turpitude is disqualified for appointment.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of
Police and Another Vs Mehar Singh, in Civil Appeal No.
4842/2013 held that “the Police force is a disciplined
force. It shoulders the great responsibility of
maintaining law and order and public order in the
society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It
must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing
to join the police force must be a person of utmost
rectitude. He must have impeccable character and
integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not
fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged
in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order
will have to be examined to see whether he has been
completely exonerated in the case because even a
possibility of taking to the life of crimes poses a threat
to the discipline of the police forces.”
Keeping in view of the above referred judgments
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, SCT Rules and facts of
the criminal case, the case of Sri Gajula Thirupathi,
(Regd. No. 1290043) is carefully examined and in the
circumstances stated above, there are no merits to
consider the case of the Petitioner to appoint him as
SCTPC (TSSP). Accordingly, provisional selection of Sri
Gajula Thirupathi, (Regd. No. 1290043) to the post of
SCTPC (TSSP) is hereby cancelled.”
(Emphasis supplied)
4. The order dated 29.01.2021 was challenged by the
appellant before a single Judge Bench of the High Court
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 4 of 24
(for short, the writ court) through a writ petition i.e.,
W.P. No. 20833 of 2021.
5. The appellant’s case before the writ court was that
he had made a full and complete disclosure in his
application about his antecedents i.e., Crime
No.190/2014 and had not suppressed any information.
The criminal case was compounded in the Lok Adalat
and there existed no material to assume that the
appellant was given the benefit of doubt or of some
technical latch. Therefore, having regard to the
provisions of Section 320 (8) of CrPC, the order
compounding the offence should be taken as honorable
acquittal. In such circumstances, there was no basis for
the respondents to conclude that appellant was not
suitable for appointment.
6. In the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition, the
respondents had disclosed the reasons for cancellation
of the provisional selection. Relevant paragraphs of the
counter affidavit are extracted below:
“5. It is submitted that pursuant to the Notification
in RC. No. 88/Rect./Admn.1/2018, dated
31.05.2018, issued by Chairman, TSLPRB, Sri
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 5 of 24
Gajula Thirupathi, S/o Narsaiah had applied to the
post of SCTPC (Civil/etc) and participated in
recruitment process vide Registration Number
1290043. He was provisionally selected to the post
of SCTPC (TSSP) subject to verification of
antecedents, original certificates and medical
fitness. The petitioner was involved in criminal case
vide Cr. No. 190/2014, U/s 417, 420 and 506 r/w
34 IPC of Dharmaram PS and the details of which
was mentioned by him in the Attestation Form
submitted by him. Since he was involved in a
serious criminal case of moral turpitude, a show
cause notice dated 25.02.2020 was issued to him
He acknowledged the show cause notice and
submitted his explanation dated 07.03.2020,
wherein he stated that a false case was foisted
against him and the same was compromised before
the Lok Adalat and requested to consider his
explanation and drop further action. The
explanation submitted by the petitioner was
examined along with the connected records and his
provisional selection was cancelled vide Memo RC.
No.222/Rectt./Genl.1/2019, dated 17.08.2020 as
per Rules as involvement in a case of moral
turpitude is a disqualification for appointment.
Moreover, it was not a case of full Trial and then a
clean acquittal but compromised with the victim
which amounts to admission of guilt.
8. It is submitted that the petitioner was involved
in a serious case of moral turpitude vide Cr. No.
190/2014, U/s 417, 420 and 506 r/w 34 IPC of
Dharmaram PS. The brief facts of the case are that,
the petitioner Sri Gajula Thirupathi (A-1) enjoyed
with the victim sexually in the name of love and
promise to marry her. When the victim asked A-1
to marry her, he postponed the matter and his
parents also threatened the victim to kill if she
asked their son to marry her. A-1 was arrested by
the Police and remanded to Judicial Custody. A-1
got married to another woman and cheated the
victim. After completing the investigation, the
concerned Police filed Charge Sheet dated
30.12.2014 against all the accused. While the case
was pending Trial both the parties compromised
the case vide CC No. 35/2015 before the Lok Adalat
at JFCM Court, Peddapalli on 31.05.2015. If the
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 6 of 24
petitioner was really innocent and was falsely
implicated, he would not have compromised the
case with the victim. Since he was guilty, he
compromised the case”.
(Emphasis supplied)
7. The writ court (i.e., the learned single Judge of the
High Court) allowed the writ petition vide order dated
03.06.2024. The relevant portion of the order of the
learned single Judge is extracted below:
“9. In this case the petitioner is aspiring to be
appointed as a police constable. The allegation
against him is that he had sexual relationship with
the victim lady, but subsequently, had refused to
marry her. It is also not in dispute that the
petitioner has married another woman and
subsequently due to the intervention of the elders,
the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat Court.
Though, the award of Lok Adalat is binding on the
parties as a decision/ decree of the Court, the
nature of offence and the grounds on which the
petitioner has been acquitted have to be considered
by the employer. In this case, the employer has
held that the petitioner was involved in a case of
moral turpitude. Though it is a case which can be
said of involvement in moral turpitude, this Court
also has to look into the circumstances of the case.
In the present scenario, a number of youth are
involving in such activities in the name of love and
subsequently, when the relationship goes sour,
they plead foul play on the part of the other party.
The victim is aged about 22 years and both the
petitioner as well as victim admittedly belong to the
same village. Therefore, the possibility of
consensual relationship between the parties
cannot be ruled out. Further, the petitioner has
been acquitted from the charges on account of a
settlement between the parties. The police
verification certificate filed at Page No. 77 of the
writ papers shows that the writ petitioner has a
clean record except for the above case. Therefore,
this Court is of the opinion that the employer
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 7 of 24
respondent No. 2, ought to have taken the same
into consideration before cancelling the provisional
selection of the petitioner.
10. In view of the above, this Court deems it fit and
proper to direct the respondents to reconsider the
case of the petitioner and dehors the Lok Adalat
award in CC No. 35/2015, if the petitioner has a
clean record otherwise, then he shall be considered
for appointment and the respondents shall send
him for training with the future next batch of
constables.”
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Aggrieved by the order of the writ court, the
respondents preferred an intra court appeal (W.A. No.
1274/2024) before the Division Bench of the High Court,
which allowed the appeal, vide impugned order dated
22.11.2024. While allowing the appeal the Court
observed, , that,- the writ petitioner was
inter alia
admittedly indicted of an offence involving moral
turpitude; the compounding of the offence does not
amount to a clean acquittal; the employer is the best judge
about the suitability of a candidate for its organization,
and therefore, if, in the opinion of the employer, the writ
petitioner was not considered suitable for employment in
a disciplined force, the writ court ought not to interfere
with its decision.
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 8 of 24
9.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the
Division Bench of the High Court, this appeal has been
preferred by the appellant.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have perused the record.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
11. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted:
(i) The appellant made a full and truthful
disclosure about his antecedents (i.e. Crime No.
190/2014) and, therefore, was not guilty of
suppression of any fact.
(ii) The final police report of Crime
no.190/2014 delineated the background facts. A
perusal thereof would reveal that the victim, an
adult aged 22 years, and the appellant, aged 24
years, were neighbors. Both were in a love
relationship spanning few years during which the
appellant had extended a promise to marry which
was accepted by the victim. But the marriage got
postponed. One day, the father and mother of the
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 9 of 24
appellant threatened the victim not to press their
son to marry her. Thereafter, when the appellant
got married to another woman, the victim lodged a
complaint alleging that she was cheated. In the
complaint, besides the appellant, appellant’s
mother and father were also made accused by
alleging that they had threatened the victim to let
off their son.
(iii) The complaint allegations depict a
consensual relationship between two adults.
Allegations of cheating were not tested by trial,
therefore they cannot form basis of an opinion that
the appellant is a person with low moral fabric
unsuitable for placement in a disciplined force.
(iv) The allegations regarding extension of
threats are against mother and father of the
appellant and not against him.
(v) There is no material to indicate that
compromise before the Lok Adalat was foisted upon
the victim. Therefore, once the Lok Adalat
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 10 of 24
compounded the offence in terms of the
compromise, there exists no material to conclude
that the appellant is a person of low moral values
and as such unsuitable for appointment.
(vi) The employer fell in error in observing that
disposal of the case based on compromise amounts
to acceptance of guilt.
(vii) The view taken by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court is just and proper in the
circumstances of the case whereas the Division
Bench committed grave error in interfering with the
same.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
12. On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted:
(i) Under the relevant rules, a candidate is
disqualified for appointment if he is involved in an
offence involving moral turpitude. The appellant
was not only implicated in an offence involving
moral turpitude, but the police found substance in
those allegations and, therefore, submitted a final
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 11 of 24
report indicting the appellant and his parents. In
consequence, the respondents were well within
their jurisdiction in concluding that the appellant
is unsuitable for appointment.
(ii) The order of Lok Adalat, though may
amount to acquittal, does not wash off the charge
as in the case of honorable acquittal. Reliance was
placed on a decision of Orissa High Court in
Krushna Jena and seven others vs. State of
6
Orissa to contend that compounding of an offence
does not mean that the offence has not been
committed. Compounding only means that though
the offence has been committed, the victim is either
willing to forget or to accept some form of solution,
which may be in the form of compensation.
(iii) In the event of an acquittal on technical
ground or by extending the benefit of reasonable
doubt, the employer may, after considering all
relevant facts available as to antecedents, take
6
1969 SCC OnLine Ori 133
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 12 of 24
appropriate decision as to the suitability of the
employee to continue or be appointed in the
establishment. Therefore, even if the candidate/
employee has made a truthful declaration
regarding a concluded criminal case, the employer
still has the right to consider antecedents and take
appropriate decision, and he cannot be compelled
to appoint the candidate. Reliance has been placed
on observations made in paragraphs 38.4.3 and
38.5 of Avtar Singh’s judgment (supra) .
(iv) Police force is a disciplined force. Here
slightest doubt about the character of a candidate
emanating from his past antecedents can form
basis of the decision to deny appointment and such
decision is not liable to be interfered with unless
actuated by mala fides . To buttress the said
submission, decisions of this Court in Commr. of
7
Police vs. Mehar Singh ; State (UT of
8
Chandigarh) vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr. and
7
(2013) 7 SCC 685
8
(2018) 1 SCC 797
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 13 of 24
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Abhijit
9
Singh Pawar were cited.
(v) Sympathetic view taken by the writ court
and its observations that acts of indiscretion
amongst youth are common in changing times and,
therefore, a liberal approach is warranted, is an
incorrect approach in law. In Satish Chadra
10
Yadav vs. Union of India and others , such
liberal approach has been deprecated by this
Court.
(vi) The view taken by the Division Bench of
the High Court is correct and, therefore, the appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS
13. We have accorded due consideration to the rival
submissions and have carefully perused the materials
available on record.
14. Before addressing the rival submissions, we must
put on record that there can be no cavil to the proposition
9
(2018) 18 SCC 733
10
(2023) 7 SCC 536
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 14 of 24
that despite a truthful disclosure by an aspiring candidate
about a criminal case ending in acquittal, the employer is
free to take its own decision that such a candidate would
not be suitable for appointment and, therefore, not entitled
to appointment. However, it is equally settled that the
State and its officers cannot act arbitrarily. Therefore,
when such a decision is subjected to judicial review, to
ensure that the same is not held arbitrary, in our view, it
must be demonstrated that, (a) there exists material on
record to indicate that an offence involving moral turpitude
was indeed committed; and (b) there exists material
against the candidate even though he may have succeeded
in earning an acquittal or a discharge for reasons such as
the benefit of: (i) a technical latch, (ii) a reasonable doubt,
(iii) the witnesses turning hostile, either because they are
won over or because they are threatened or lured into a
compromise. If after consideration of those facts an
informed decision is taken, the Courts should be slow to
interfere with such a decision of the employer / recruiter
because ultimately the employer is the best judge to assess
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 15 of 24
whether a person is suitable for appointment in its
organization.
15. In Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
11
Others , a candidature was cancelled for not making full
and complete disclosure of past antecedents, this Court
while setting aside the cancellation order, after surveying
a plethora of precedents, stressed upon the importance of
a holistic consideration of various aspects to test the
validity of an order rejecting the candidature on ground of
past criminal antecedent. Those aspects are summarized
in paragraph 32 of the judgment extracted below:
“32. The nature of the office, the timing and nature of the
criminal case; the overall consideration of the judgment of
acquittal; the nature of the query in the application/
verification form; the contents of the character verification
reports; the socio-economic strata of the individual applying;
the other antecedents of the candidate; the nature of
consideration and the contents of the cancellation/
termination order are some of the crucial aspects which should
enter the judicial verdict in adjudging suitability and in
determining the nature of the relief to be ordered.”
16. Before we proceed to test the validity of the
cancellation order passed by the respondents, it would be
11
(2024) 5 SCC 264
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 16 of 24
apposite to summarize the undisputed facts of the present
case. These are:
(i) The appellant had made a full and complete
disclosure of the criminal case registered against
him in the past.
(ii) The said case was instituted by a lady who
was a neighbor of the appellant. Allegations were
that she had been in a relationship with the
appellant for a period of about four years; during
this period, the appellant had proposed to marry
her, but when she asked the appellant to marry
her, the appellant kept postponing; and later,
appellant’s parents threatened her, asking her to
let off their son. Importantly, this FIR was lodged
after the appellant got married to another lady.
(iii) After investigation, the final police report
indicted the appellant and his parents under
Sections 417, 420 and 506/34 IPC. However, there
is no indictment under Section 376 IPC.
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 17 of 24
(iv) The said case did not go to trial. Rather,
based on a compromise, it was compounded in a
Lok Adalat. The order of Lok Adalat has attained
finality.
(v). There is no statement either in the show
cause notice or in the cancellation order or in the
counter affidavit filed to the writ petition that the
victim had to compromise because of threats or
allurement.
(vi) On record, there is no material other than
the aforesaid case to form an adverse opinion
about the character of the appellant.
17. When we go through the counter affidavit of the
respondents filed to the writ petition, relevant portions of
which have been extracted above, we notice two key
statements against the appellant:
(i) It was not a case of full trial and then a
clean acquittal but of compromise with the victim,
which amounts to admission of guilt.
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 18 of 24
(ii) If the petitioner was innocent and was
falsely implicated, he would not have compromised
the case with the victim. Since he was guilty, he
compromised the case.
18. The statement that it was not a case of clean acquittal
is based on fact but nothing much turns on it. However,
the statement that the compromise amounts to admission
of guilt is without any basis. Further, the statement that
the appellant compromised because he was guilty is
completely perverse and defies logic. While making such
statements the respondent lost sight of the nature of the
offence alleged.
19. The offence alleged qua the appellant was of cheating.
Though qua the parents of the appellant, it was about
extension of threats. In so far as the offence of cheating is
concerned, the allegation is in respect of making a false
promise to marry. Whether a person was deceived into a
relationship can ordinarily be determined based on the
statement of the person so deceived. Unless the person so
deceived wishes to step into the witness box, it cannot be
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 19 of 24
said that that person was deceived or cheated. Therefore,
if that victim is not willing to bring home the charge, how
can the accused be blamed for not contesting the
proceeding on merit. Besides authorities would have to be
sensitive to the changing times in the context of pre-
marital relationships. Such pre-marital relationships are
common today. Moreover, physical relationship between
two consenting unmarried adults cannot and should not
by itself be a ground to draw an adverse impression about
the character of the person in that relationship. There is
no law which prohibits two consenting unmarried adults
to have a relationship of their choice. Further, where such
a relationship spans a considerable period, say a few
years, time and again this Court has quashed criminal
proceedings initiated by one party against the other on a
complaint that the victim was lured into physical
relationship by a false promise of marriage, because in
such a case there would be a presumption that such
12
relationship is based on a valid consent.
12
Sonu @ Subash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 18 SCC 517; Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7
SCC 675; Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand & Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1055
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 20 of 24
20.
In the instant case, the appellant and the victim were
neighbors and in a relationship for about four years. Not
every relationship culminates in marriage. Therefore,
merely because the relationship did not culminate in
marriage is no ground to believe that one party has
cheated the other. Had it been a case of use of force or
extension of threat to force a compromise, the respondent
would have been justified in taking a call on the suitability
of the appellant for appointment in a disciplined force.
However, here there is no material to conclude that the
compromise was foisted upon the victim.
21. The question that arises next is whether
indictment alone in a police report, based on allegations
which have been withdrawn or not pressed, can form the
basis to form an adverse opinion about the character of the
person indicted.
22. In criminal jurisprudence, it is well settled that
unless the charge is proved in a court of law there shall be
a presumption of innocence. No doubt, where commission
of the offence is proved but the accused is let off for some
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 21 of 24
technical reason or is given the benefit of doubt, the
employer may, based on the material available on record,
conclude that person who had got the benefit of doubt or
technical latch is not suitable for appointment. However,
to form such an opinion there would have to be: (a)
evidence/ material that the crime was committed and (b)
some evidence/ material linking the person concerned to
the crime.
23. In the instant case, the offence alleged was one of
cheating. One of the ingredients of the offence of cheating
is false representation/ deception. Whether prosecutrix
was deceived into entering a relationship, the prosecutrix
alone could have disclosed. The public at large cannot tell
whether she was deceived by the appellant. In such
circumstances, when the prosecutrix chose not to pursue
and had led no evidence, rather had expressed her consent
to compound the case, there was no occasion for the
respondents to read in between lines and draw an adverse
inference regarding the character of the appellant.
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 22 of 24
24. Mehar Singh (supra)
In , a decision heavily relied
by the respondent, the FIR lodged by a bus owner alleged
that when the bus reached the bus stand of a village,
Mehar Singh along with others, armed with iron chain,
lathi, danda, stones etc. arrived at the spot, rebuked the
conductor of the bus as to how he dared to take the fare
from one of his associates and when persons intervened,
and tried to save the conductor of the bus, they were
assaulted, sustaining injuries on their back, eyes and ears.
Besides the accused broke the side windowpanes of the
bus. In that context, when Mehar Singh earned his
acquittal based on a compromise with the complainant,
the Court took the view that since the acquittal was not a
clean acquittal, the decision of the screening committee
finding Mehar Singh not suitable for disciplined force
cannot be faulted.
25. In contrast, here, notwithstanding the police
report, which itself is based on statements recorded during
investigation, there is a serious doubt whether the offence
of cheating was committed at all. Deposition of the victim
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 23 of 24
in court alone could have proved its commission, if at all.
Therefore, when the victim herself chose to withdraw the
allegations and compound the offence, there was no
occasion to suspect the character of the accused more so
when both parties were adult and neighbors, knowing each
other for several years. We are, therefore, of the view that
the decision of the Screening Committee to deny
appointment to the petitioner is arbitrary and was
justifiably set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court. In our view, the Division Bench of the High Court
fell in error in setting aside the order of the learned Single
Judge. Consequently, this appeal is allowed.
26. The impugned order of the Division Bench of the
High Court is set aside. The order passed by the learned
Single Judge is restored. There is no order as to costs.
27. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
…............................................. J.
(Manoj Misra)
................................................ J.
(Manmohan)
New Delhi;
May 21, 2026
C.A. No.8059/2026 Page 24 of 24