DY. GENERAL MANAGER, REDESIGNATED AS DY. DIRECTOR, !SB ETC. versus SUDARSHAN KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1094 · Decided: 02-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DY. GENERAL MANAGER, REDESIGNATED AS DY. 
DIRECTOR, !SB ETC. 
v. 
SUDARSHAN KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. 
B 
APRIL 2, 1996 
IK. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.J 
Leave and Licence : 
C 
Grant of licence on compassionate grounds-Misuse of-Widow of 
freedom fighter granted licence of shop-Application for renewal of 
licence-Show cause notice issued to licensee for ejectn1ent-W!it petition 
filed challenging the notice-Affidavit filed not signed by writ petitioner licen-
see-Sig11ature of petitioner obtained by High Cowt 1101 consistent with the 
sig11atures on Vakalatnama and ajfidavit-Pennission for withdrawal of writ 
D petition with liberty to file fresh petition granted-Held, in view of the facts 
that renewal application was not signed by the licensee, nor were the affidavit 
a1~d Vakalatnania signed hy her, it is obvious that she had taken the licence 
and assigned the sa111e to sonieone else who conunitted forge1y and the 
compassionate grounds and the libe1ties given are being misused-High Coun 
E not light in pennitting the petitioner to withdraw the petition and to file 
another lVrit petition on sanie cause of action. 
Notmy: 
Affidavit.I-Attestation of-Notmy issuing false attestatimr-Re[;isuy 
F 
directed lo iS.\'llC notfr·e lo 1Vota1y to sho1v cause as lo why he should not be 
prosecuted and punished for attesting false affidavit and why l1is licence 
should 1101 be cancelled and he should 1101 be prosecuted j(Jr giving false 
ce1tificate . . 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7084 of 
G 1996@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6122 of 1995 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.94 of the Delhi High 
Court in C.W. No. 2483 of 1994. 
San.iay Poddar, D.K. Malhotra, Ajay K. Jain, Pramod Dayal, V.B. 
Saharaya and D. Goburdhan for the appearing parties. 
1094 
t 
DY. GENERAL MANAGER v. S. KUMAR! 
1095 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
This case is a n1isuse of the compassionate ground" on which leave 
and licence is sought to be granted to the widows of the freedom lighter. 
The appellant had granted to the first respondent leave and licence on May B 
15, 1992 the shop (Sales Counter) bearing No. 'H' at Interstate Bus 
Terminal at a concessional rate of 51fr; 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 
C 
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. 
Awrit 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 direc-
D 
tion 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 Oc-
tober 24, 1994 informing the High Court of Delhi of the forgery committed 
in the pleadings and also her application of renewal. The Court has called E 
upon the respondent to appear 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 Yakalatnama 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 lilc 
F 
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 arc informed that posses~ion 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 respon- G 
dent is entitled to the renewal of the leave and licence and whether liberty 
to withdraw the W..it petition was appropriately granted by the High Court? 
In the re_joinder 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 H 
A 
B 
c 
1096 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 
across that t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.