Dy.
General Manager, Redesignated as Dy. Director, ISB Vs. Sudarshan Kumari &
Ors [1996] INSC 486 (2 April 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1894 1996 SCC (3) 763 JT 1996 (4) 243 1996 SCALE (3)551
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
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 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.
Back
Pages: 1 2