Delhi High Court
Bondwell Enterprises vs Union Of India on 18 August, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
20.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 555/2009
Date of decision: 18th August, 2009
BONDWELL ENTERPRISES .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Manish Vashisht, Adv.
versus
UOI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. R.V. Sinha, Adv. with Mr. R.N.
Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whethe`r the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
%
1. The petitioner herein on 4th February, 1995 was granted certificate
under Section 11 of the Emigration Act, 1983 to commence and carry on
the business of recruitment for deployment of workers in foreign countries.
Initially the certificate was valid for 3 years and for 100 workers.
2. The validity of the certificate was extended/renewed from time to
time and on 22nd March, 2000, the certificate was modified and was made
valid for 300 workers, which was later on increased to 1000 plus workers.
3. The petitioner last applied for renewal of the said registration
W.P. (C) No. 555/2009 Page 1
certificate on 3rd November, 2006 as the last renewal was expiring on 3rd
February, 2007.
4. By order dated 19th January, 2007, the registration certificate was
directed to be kept in abeyance in view of the FIR No.912/1998 under
Section 420/102-B IPC read with Section 24/25 of the Emigration Act. The
said FIR was registered in the year 1998 and a criminal case was pending
against the petitioner in the Court.
5. This order dated 19th January, 2007 and a subsequent order dated 4th
April, 2007 were challenged by the petitioner by way of W.P.(C) No.
5953/2007 before this Court. During the pendency of the said writ petition,
the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal Court vide judgment dated 25th
February, 2008. Noticing the aforesaid facts, W.P.(C) No.5953/2007 filed
by the petitioner was disposed of vide judgment dated 29th September,
2008 with the following directions:-
"9. I have heard learned counsel for the
parties, the application of the petitioner for
renewal of the Registration Certificate was not
being considered by the respondents due to
pendency of a case arising out of FIR No.912/1998
under Section 420/12--B IPC read with Sections
24 and 25 of the Emigration Act, 1983, Police
Station Hauz Khas, Delhi. The petitioner now
stands acquitted by the Court. Certified copy of
the order of acquittal has been filed. Present
petition is disposed of with the following
directions:
W.P. (C) No. 555/2009 Page 2
1) The respondents will consider the application of
the petitioner for renewal of Registration
Certificate.
2) Respondents shall grant a personal hearing
to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from
today.
3) Respondents shall pass a speaking order with
respect to the renewal/fresh certificate to be
issued to the petitioner.
10. Needless to say, in case the petitioner is
aggrieved by the final order which may be passed
by the respondents, it will be open to the
petitioner to assail the same, in accordance with
law.
11. Petition stands disposed of."
6. By impugned order dated 11th December, 2008, the respondents
have rejected the renewal/revalidation request made by the petitioner
holding, inter alia, that there is no provision under the prevailing rules to
revalidate/renew an expired registration certificate and the petitioner is
required to apply for fresh registration certificate.
7. Counsel for the petitioner is justified in questioning the reasoning
given in the order dated 11th December, 2008. What was pending before
the Appellate Authority was that the renewal application dated 3rd
November, 2006, which was kept in abeyance to await the judgment of the
criminal Court vide letter dated 19th January, 2007. The said application
had remained pending till the decision dated 29th September, 2008 in W.P.
(C) No. 5953/2007. The renewal application was remanded back to the
W.P. (C) No. 555/2009 Page 3
respondents for a fresh decision.
8. The respondents along with the counter affidavit have filed on record
office memorandum dated 6th May, 2008 on the question of renewal of the
existing registration certificates. The said office memorandum deals how a
request for renewal of registration certificate has to be dealt with when a
serious complaint was/is pending against the recruiting agent. The said
guidelines follow a middle path. In such cases it has been directed that the
recruiting agent should be asked to apply for a fresh/new registration
certificate but such cases cannot strictly be treated at par with cases for
issue of a registration certificate for the first time. It is stated in the circular
that the new registration certificate in such cases is in continuation of the
earlier registration certificate and the following procedure is required to be
followed:-
"3. As issue of a new RC in such type of
cases cannot strictly be treated at par with the
cases of a issue of a RC for the first time and that a
new RC in such cases is, in fact, in continuation of
the earlier one, and in consideration of the
position explained above, it has been decided that
when the RC of a recruiting agent is not renewed
due to pending complaints and by the time the
complaint is closed, the RC expires, a new RC will
be issued to the RA ( he should have qualified for
renewal on the basis of his performance ) without
the requirement of the formalities such as
inspection of the office premises and verification
of character and antecedents, if the same
W.P. (C) No. 555/2009 Page 4
premises are used, which have been inspected
earlier and the same person continues as the
recruiting agent and no adverse report is there
from the police earlier, after obtaining application
in Form-I, Form-II and process fee ( the fee paid
for renewal, if not utilized for the purpose, will be
adjusted for this and RA may not pay fee again).
However, such applicants will be called for a
personal interview to take stock of the overall
situation.
4. A similar procedure will be adopted in case
of appeals decided in favour of the RA, if the RC
has expired during pendency of the appeal.
5. The applications in all such cases will be
routed through the offices of POEs as is the case
for fresh registration. While receiving such
applications, the POEs shall follow these
guidelines. Further, while forwarding the
applications to the Office of the Protector General
of Emigrants, the POEs will clearly indicate the
category of the application, i.e., the applications
are for issue of fresh RC on fast tract basis."
9. The said circular dated 6th May, 2009 has not been challenged and
questioned in the present writ petition.
10. After some hearing, counsel for the petitioner on instructions from
Mr. Yogendra Singh, proprietor of the petitioner, states that the petitioner
will file an application in terms of the said circular dated 6th May, 2008 but
the respondents should be directed to dispose of the application
expeditiously as the matter has remained pending since 2006. The request
made by the petitioner is fair and reasonable. It will be open for the
petitioner to apply for registration in terms of circular dated 6th May, 2008
W.P. (C) No. 555/2009 Page 5
and comply with the formalities mentioned in the Act, Rules and said
circular. The application filed by the petitioner will be disposed of
expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date
formalities are completed.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
AUGUST 18, 2009
NA/VKR
W.P. (C) No. 555/2009 Page 6
