Delhi High Court
Kamal Kishore vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 February, 2011
Author: S. Muralidhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(CIVIL) No. 3650 of 2010 & CM APPL
7307/10, 8027/10, 9184/10, 11848/10, 12414/10
Reserved on: 8th February 2011
Decision on: 14th February 2011
KAMAL KISHORE ....PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajbir Bansal and
Ms. Seema Rao, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .... RESPONDENTS
Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Amandeep Joshi, Advocate with
Flt. Lt. Neha Rana.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. Whether reporters of the local newspapers
be allowed to see the order? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the order should be reported in the Digest? Yes
ORDER
14.02.2011
1. The Petitioner, claiming to be a law abiding citizen, and having
retired as a Sergeant from the Indian Air Force after serving 18
years, filed the present writ petition on 24th May 2010 seeking the
quashing of the allotment of a shop in the Ganga Complex, Subroto
Park, New Delhi in favour of Respondent No. 5, Mr. Puttu Singh,
and for a consequential direction to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to allot
him the shop in question for the period from 1 st April 2010 to 31st
March, 2012.
2. The Petitioner had been allotted a shop in the Ganga Complex,
Subroto Park, New Delhi for the period 1st April 2008 to 31st
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 1 of 25
March 2010 for running a sweet and milk shop. According to the
Petitioner, an advertisement was issued in the newspaper by
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (representing the Air Headquarters) and
Respondent No.4 [the Officer-in-charge (OIC), President Service
Institute (PSI) at Subroto Park] on 11th March 2010 inviting tenders
for the shop in question. On 17th March 2010 when the tenders
were opened it was found that the Petitioner and the Respondent
No. 5 were the only tenderers. On 23rd March 2010 the Petitioner
gave a representation to the Respondents for allotment of the said
shop in his favour.
3. According to the Petitioner, on that very day i.e. 23rd March
2010 the Respondents displayed a list on the notice board of the
PSI. According to the Petitioner this was a list showing the
allotments of various shops including the shop in question.
According to the Petitioner, this list indicated that the shop in
question had been allotted to the Petitioner for the period 1st April
2010 to 31st March 2012. The Petitioner‟s name figured at Serial
No. 6 in the said list. Annexure P-IIIA to the writ petition (at page
23 of the paper book) is a photocopy of the said list. The Petitioner
states in para 6 of the writ petition that the said list "was also
verified by the No. 2 Provost and Security Unit Personnel in person
by visiting the shop in question."
4. The Petitioner states that on 3rd May 2010 the OIC of the PSI
issued him a notice for vacation of the shop in question by 15 th
May 2010. The Petitioner made a representation on 4 th May 2010
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 2 of 25
questioning the facts concerning the address and identity of the
Respondent No. 5 for allotment of a sweet and milk shop. He made
a further representation on 5th May 2010 to the Respondents asking
that the move to evict him from vacating the shop in question be
deferred. On 12th May 2010 he received a letter from the office of
the Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Cantonment Board regarding
verification of the address of Respondent No. 5. The OIC, PSI
again wrote a letter asking the Petitioner to vacate the shop in
question by 31st May 2010. The Petitioner made representations on
13th and 15th May 2010 and thereafter the present writ petition was
filed.
5. On 25th May 2010 the following order was passed by this Court:
"1. Mr. Khanna, learned Senior counsel appearing
for the Petitioner draws attention to the list
purportedly displayed by the Respondents which is
annexed as Annexure P-IIIA (page 23 of the paper
book) which seems to indicate that the Petitioner
has been issued a licence for the period up to 31st
March 2012 for a sweet shop. However, the
document at page 29 indicates to the contrary and
requires the Petitioner to vacate the shop by 31st
May 2010.
2. Mr. Ankur Chibber, learned counsel for the
Respondents seeks time to obtain instructions and
produce, if necessary, the original record which
would show the factual position.
3. List on 28th May, 2010."
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 3 of 25
6. At the next date of hearing i.e. on 28th May 2010 the following
order was passed:
"1. The records that have been produced do not
contain the original of the document which has been
placed at Annexure P-6. Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned
counsel for the Respondents states that whatever in
the file is only a photocopy of that document. She
however hastens to add that in a communication
dated 12th May 2010 the Petitioner was, with
reference to that very list, informed as under:
„4. List attached with your application is not
an official list and appears to be a part of
some internal work done in the office and this
list was not displayed on the notice board. The
source from which internal documentation of
SI has been procured may kindly be
specified.‟
2. What is still not clear in on what basis some
internal note in the office was prepared, who
prepared it and what happened subsequent to that list
which ended up with the Petitioner not being allotted
the shop in question although he bid for it.
3. Ms. Jyoti Singh states that she will file a detailed
affidavit giving parawise reply as well as clarifying
the above queries within two weeks. Response
thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.
4. List on 2nd July 2010.
5. Till the next date of hearing status quo as of today
shall be maintained.
6. Order be given dasti."
7. Thereafter, the Respondents 1 to 4 filed CM Application No.
8027 of 2010 on 1st June 2010 seeking vacation of the stay order
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 4 of 25
dated 28th May 2010. The averment in this application reads as
under:
"1. That the Petitioner has not come to the Hon‟ble
Court with clean hands. He has placed heavy
reliance on a list at page 23 which is shown to be
signed by Flt. Lt. Neha Rana. It is submitted that
the officer has not signed on the list. Her signatures
are forged and superimposed. The date is wrongly
mentioned. The original documents which even the
Petitioner had annexed with his earlier letter neither
has the date, nor the signature. Forging signatures
of a serving Air Force Officer and then filing in this
Hon‟ble Court is a serious matter and a criminal
offence.
2. That moreover even the list which was in the
Computer and part of internal work for police
verification of present incumbents of shops was
illegally taken by the Petitioner. He is not
supposed to be in possession of this document as
such. It is well settled that if a person comes to the
Court unclear hands, then he should not be granted
any relief. In any case he is not the highest bidder
in the tender and cannot be allowed to continue in a
sensitive and security area in the Air Force
Campus."
8. On 1st June 2010 a short affidavit was filed by the Group Captain
H.R. Viswanath working as Chief Administrative Officer, AFCAO,
Subroto Park, New Delhi wherein para 1 it is stated as under:
"1. By way of preliminary objections, it is submitted
that the Petitioner has not approached this Hon‟ble
Court with clean hands. He has placed heavy
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 5 of 25
reliance on a list at page 23 which is shown to be
signed by Flt. Lt. Neha Rana. It is submitted that the
Officer has not signed on the list. Her signatures are
forged and superimposed. The date is wrongly
mentioned. The original documents which even the
Petitioner had annexed with his earlier letter neither
has the date, nor the signature. Forging signatures of
a serving Air Force Officer and then filing in this
Hon‟ble Court is a serious matter and a criminal
offence. Moreover, even the list which was in the
Computer and part of internal work for police
verification of present incumbents of shops was
illegally taken by the Petitioner. He is not supposed
to be in possession of this document as such. It is
well settled that if a person comes to the Court with
unclear hands, then he should not be granted any
relief. In any case he is not the highest bidder in the
tender and cannot be allowed to continue in a
sensitive and security area in the Air Force Campus.
The petition deserves to be dismissed on these
grounds alone."
9. As regards the tendering process it is stated in the said affidavit
that for the shop in question at Ganga Complex, Subroto Park, bids
were submitted by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 Mr. Puttu
Singh who quoted the highest rate at Rs. 7,000/- per month whereas
the Petitioner quoted Rs. 5,200/- per month. Consequently, the bid
of Mr. Puttu Singh was accepted. The tenders were opened by the
Board of Officers („BOO‟) on 17th March 2010 in the presence of
the Petitioner himself. Consequently, the Petitioner was well aware
that the quotation of Mr. Puttu Singh was higher. Therefore, as on
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 6 of 25
that date i.e. 17th March 2010 the Petitioner knew that he would
have to vacate the shop in question forthwith.
10. On 30th April 2010 a formal allotment of the shop in question
was done in favour of Respondent No.5 by issuing a letter to him.
This led to the Petitioner being issued a letter dated 3rd May 2010
asking him to vacate the shop in question. As regards the complaint
of the Petitioner regarding the correct address of Mr. Puttu Singh, it
is stated that a verification of the said address was carried out by
the Provost, Air Force and was found to be correct. It was stated
that the Petitioner was perhaps a political rival of Mr. Puttu Singh.
11. On 11th May 2010 the Respondents received a letter from the
Petitioner requesting for extension of time for vacating the shop in
question by 31st May 2010. He insisted that the address of
Respondent No. 5 in the tender form was wrong. It is pointed out
that it is not understood as to how the Petitioner came to know the
address given by Respondent No. 5 since he is not supposed to be
privy to the information given by other parties on tender forms.
The affidavit of Respondents filed on 1st June 2010 further stated
that by a letter dated 12th May 2010 the Petitioner was informed
that the list (Annexure P IIIA) was not official. It was not
understood as to how the Petitioner had come to possess the said
list. The list annexed by the Petitioner along with the letter had
neither date nor signatures. The Respondents stated that it was
obvious that "the signatures and the date have been forged and
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 7 of 25
fraudulently put." It was explained that the said list was compiled
by a clerk and was only intended for police verification of the
present incumbents of the shops. It had nothing to do with the
tender or allotment of shops. The list was just an internal work and
was not meant to indicate any allotment since the allotment was
through a proper process of tenders in which the Petitioner had also
participated. The final decision to allot the shop was taken only on
30th April 2010 and the comparative statement of quotations was
itself prepared only on 26th March 2010. Therefore, the date
indicated under the list as 23rd March 2010 on page 23 shows the
falsity of the forged documents. In fact, this list was also submitted
in the 1st week of May, 2010 to the local police for verification and
did bear the verification remarks. The Respondents stated that the
original of the above list was produced before the Court along with
the file notings. It was maintained that the Petitioner had illegally
procured this list. The mention of the dates in the contract against
the name of the Petitioner in the said list was a "mere clerical error
and has followed the command of the computer given in the earlier
entries. No Officer has vetted this list and it is of no consequence."
12. Along with the short affidavit, an affidavit of Flt. Lt. Neha
Rana was filed. It must be mentioned at this stage that Annexure P-
III A filed by the Petitioner with the writ petition purportedly
contains the signature of Flt. Lt. Neha Rana at the bottom of the
document. In her affidavit she stated as under:
"1. That I am presently working at AFCAO, Subroto
Park as Officer-Incharge, S.Il Fund. I am conversant
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 8 of 25
with the facts of the present case as I am directly
connected with the allotment of the present shops.
On 29th May 2010 I was shown a copy of the writ
petition mentioned above for preparing parawise
comments in order to respond to the averments in
the petition. While I was going through the
documents annexed with the petition, I came across
a list of shops attached by the Petitioner at page 23. I
was showed to see that the list bears my signatures
at the bottom. I have never signed on any such list
and my signatures have obviously been forged or
transposed. I submit that earlier, during the course of
official transactions I had written certain letters to
the Petitioner such as letter for vacation etc. and
those documents were indeed bearing my signatures.
Since these documents were in possession of the
Petitioner, he has misused them to transpose my
signature on this list. As a responsible officer of the
Indian Air Force I am giving this affidavit with
complete responsibility that I have not signed as
wrongly given by the Petitioner at page 23."
13. On 4th June 2010 when the application for vacation of stay was
listed, this Court passed the following order:
"1. In view of the affidavit filed today by Flight
Lieutenant Neha Rana who has made a positive
statement that her signature on the document at
Annexure P-IIIA has been forged, this Court
considers it necessary to have an enquiry conducted
into the matter by the Registrar of this Court to be
nominated by the Registrar General. The file be
placed before the Registrar concerned on 2nd July
2010 for enquiring into whether the document at
Annexure P-IIIA to the writ petition (page 23 of the
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 9 of 25
paper book) is forged. I will be open to the Registrar
to get the view of any expert for this purpose.
2. Meanwhile considering the affidavit that has now
come on record, the interim order passed by this
Court is modified and it is directed that the allotment
made of the shop in question will be subject to
further orders in this petition. The original record
which is brought to the Court shall be kept in a
sealed cover and will be kept with the Registrar
concerned, who will obviously be referring to it
during the enquiry. The Registrar is requested to
give his report on or before 31st August 2010.
3. List before Court on 16th September 2010.
4. The date of 2nd July 2010 stands cancelled.
5. Order dasti to the parties."
14. Thereafter orders were passed in CM Application No. 9184 of
2010 permitting the Petitioner to obtain photocopies of all
documents on record which were relevant to the case. A further
clarification was issued on 23rd July 2010.
15. The Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court after conducting a
detailed enquiry submitted a report on 14th September 2010 and it
was taken on record on the same date. A copy of the said report
was given to learned counsel for the parties. The Petitioner was
given time to file objections to the report.
16. On 13th December 2010 the Registry was directed to supply
copies of depositions of EW-1 to EW-10 to the Petitioner. The
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 10 of 25
Petitioner was given a last opportunity to file objections to the
report of the Registrar (Vigilance) which he did ultimately on 11th
January 2011.
17. The submissions of Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned Senior
counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned
Senior counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 4 have been heard.
18. Mr. Khanna attacked the report of the Registrar (Vigilance) on
several grounds. According to him, there were different versions
regarding Annexure P-IIIA. The first version was that Flt. Lt. Neha
Rana, in her letter dated 12th May 2010 to the Petitioner, stated that
the said list was not official one. According to him, at that stage she
did not dispute that the list had not been signed by her. The second
version of Group Captain H.R. Vishwanath was that the list was in
the computer and part of internal work for police verification of the
present incumbents of the shops and was illegally taken by the
Petitioner. According to Mr. Khanna when the original records
were brought before this Court the original of Annexure P-IIIA was
missing from the file and a photocopy of the said document was
available. Mr. Khanna submitted that a comparison of the list of
successful bidders with the list at Annexure P-III A showed that the
latter "comprises of the names of the persons who on the date of
preparation of the list were the list of allottees of the shops and not
the present incumbents." Mr. Khanna asked why, when the
Petitioner‟s allotment came to an end on 31st March 2010, his name
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 11 of 25
would be sent for police verification along with all the allottees.
According to him, the list at Annexure P-III A not only contained
the names of the new allottees but also the period of their allotment
as well as the rate of rebate (rent) they would be liable to pay up to
the period of allotment i.e. 31st March 2012. The Petitioner had
offered to pay the rebate (rent) of Rs. 7,000/- by his letter dated
23rd March 2010 and this was reflected in Annexure P-III A.
19. Mr. Khanna insisted that the Respondents should be directed to
supply photocopies of the documents available with the office of
the PSI pertaining to the records of allotment of shops including the
PSI Cash Receipts from 1st April 2010 to 30th April 2010, rebate
register of SI shops, cash book of PSI office for the period April
and May 2010, security deposit register and the original list of
allotment of shops from 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2012.
According to him, these documents would show that the stand
taken by the Respondents that the decision of allotment of shops
was taken on 30th April 2010 was incorrect since the Respondents
started collecting rebate in the month of April 2010 much before
30th April 2010. He referred to the evidence of Flt. Lt. Gautam
Salaria who stated that the tenders were opened in the month of
March 2010 and finalized and submitted to the Competent
Authority on 18th March 2010. Another witness Mr. B.S. Chauhan
stated that the tenders were submitted to the Competent Authority
on 26th March 2010 and the final decision was taken on 30 th April
2010.
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 12 of 25
20. Mr. Khanna alleged that the Registrar (Vigilance) had not
permitted the Petitioner to peruse the notings on the file which
would have shown the movement of the file from time to time. It is
further alleged that the notings portion would have shown that Flt.
Lt. Neha Rana was guilty of removing her original signed letter
from the official records. Also her original sample signatures were
not submitted for forensic examination. Mr. Khanna submitted that
the reports regarding superimposition of EW-5/2 and EW-1/2, did
not throw light on EW-1 having the signatures of Flt. Lt. Neha
Rana by superimposition or forgery. According to Mr. Khanna, the
forensic examination of the signatures on the list as well as those
on the two documents (EW-5/2 and EW-1/2) showed that they did
not tally. It is alleged that the Respondents have taken a great risk
by compromising with the national security by favouring Mr. Puttu
Singh in a very high security area like Subroto Park. The letters
from one Mrs. Omwati Lohia showing him as her tenant for 20
years showed that the address given by Mr. Puttu Singh was false.
Mr. Khanna then attacked the depositions of LAC S.K. Patel, Flt.
Lt. Gautam Salaria and Mr. Anurag Sharma, Handwriting Expert,
CFSL, Rohini. He finally urged that the report of the Registrar
(Vigilance) should be rejected and directions should be issued to
the Respondents to allot the shop in question to the Petitioner.
21. Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
Respondents stood by the several affidavits filed by the
Respondents. She also referred to the various paragraphs of the
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 13 of 25
report of the Registrar (Vigilance) which analyze the evidence
placed before him in a great detail.
22. It requires to be recapitulated that the Petitioner‟s entire case
stems from the document at Annexure P III A which according to
him is a list of allottees of various shops, including the shop in
question in his favour, for the period 1st April 2010 to 31st March
2012. The Respondents 1 to 4 have taken the categorical stand that
the said list was an internal document, not displayed on the notice
board of the Office of the PSI as claimed by the Petitioner. They
further took that stand that the copy of the said document as
produced by the Petitioner was forged and fabricated. Flt. Lt. Neha
Rana stated on affidavit that she never signed any such document.
This was what led to the enquiry by the Registrar (Vigilance) of
this Court into the genuineness of Annexure P-IIIA.
23. Ten witnesses on behalf of the Respondents were examined by
the Registrar (Vigilance) during his enquiry. The Petitioner filed
the affidavits of himself (EW-1), Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta (EW-2),
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar (EW-3) and Mr. Narsingh Jasoria (EW-4).
These affidavits were to the effect that Annexure P-IIIA was
displayed on the notice board of the PSI, Subroto Park. The
Petitioner deposed that signatures of the Flt. Lt. Neha Rana
appearing on two letters dated 3rd May 2010 (page 25 of the paper
book) and dated 12th May 2010 (page 29 of the paper book) did not
tally with the signature appearing at Annexure P-IIIA and
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 14 of 25
therefore, there was no question of any fabrication or
superimposition of her signatures by him. Before the Registrar
(Vigilance) the Petitioner could not produce any person from the
office of the PSI to prove the authenticity of the said list (Annexure
P-IIIA) which was purportedly placed on the notice board. He
stated that the said list was a photocopy and the signature of Flt. Lt.
Neha Rana appearing on the said list was also not original but was
a photocopied signature. During the enquiry he deposed that he had
"removed photocopy of the list displayed on the notice board on
10th April 2010, got the same photocopied and thereafter, he again
affixed the same list which was removed by him, on the notice
board on same day." He further deposed that "he did not move any
written application seeking permission to deposit the security
amount, he made the representation on 11th May 2010 in the office
of the Respondent seeking extension of the period to vacate the
shop in question and also to verify the address of Mr. Puttu Singh
despite the fact that he had no knowledge about the allotment of the
shop in question to Mr. Puttu Singh." The Registrar (Vigilance)
noted that the Petitioner improved his version during his further
statement recorded on 6th August 2008 when he deposed that on 3rd
May 2010 he came to know about the allotment of the shop in
question to Mr. Puttu Singh when he went to the office of the PSI
for depositing the rent.
24. EW-2 Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta deposed that the said list on the
notice board "was completely pasted on the notice board with
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 15 of 25
„GUM‟ and the same could not have been removed therefrom." No
other second list was displayed after 24th March 2010. According to
him, the date mentioned at the bottom of the said list was 24th
March 2010. EW-3 Mr. Sanjiv Kumar had stated in his affidavit
dated 16th July 2010 that the list was dated 23rd March 2010 but he
deposed before the Registrar (Vigilance) that he is not sure as to
whether any date was mentioned on the said list or not. According
to him, the typed list was displaced on the notice board. Although
both EW-4 Mr. Narsing Jasoria and EW-3 Mr. Sanjiv Kumar stated
that they had taken a photocopy of the list at Annexure P-IIIA, they
stated that "they were not supplied with a copy of the said list by
the officials of the respondent and it was not possible to remove the
list from the notice board as it was completely pasted with
„GUM‟."
25. The Registrar (Vigilance) observed that it was not clear how
EWs 3 and 4 took away photocopies of the list with them. He
concluded that the testimonies of EW-2 to EW-4 were full of
contradictions and did not inspire confidence. They were interested
persons each being an unsuccessful bidder was likely to bear a
grudge at not being allotted shops. A list that was completely
pasted on a notice board could not have been easily removed and
photocopied and pasted back as claimed by the Petitioner. This
conclusion of the Registrar (Vigilance) could have been the only
logical one to arrive at. It is unexceptionable.
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 16 of 25
26. The criticism by Mr. Khanna of the witnesses of the
Respondents does not appear to be well-founded. Flt. Lt. Neha
Rana was consistent in her stand that she had never signed the
letter at page 23 at any point of time. She was clear that neither
date of 23rd March 2010 appearing at the bottom of the said
document is in her hand writing nor the hand written portions on
the said document are in her hand writing. Her stand was that the
list showed the names of persons who were occupying the shops in
different complexes and that it was not the admission list of
allottees. It was never displayed on the notice board. During the
enquiry, in response to a question during her cross-examination,
Flt. Lt. Neha Rana stated that a list of successful bidders was
prepared on 26th March 2010 and was signed by Flt. Lt. Gautam
Salaria and MWO B S Chauhan, Member of the BOO. She stated
that the list at Page 23 of the petition "does not show the names of
the persons who were allotted the shop. But the said list shows the
names of the persons who were occupying the shops in different
complexes and the same was prepared for verification of address."
Her statement was corroborated by the statements of EW-9 Gautam
Salaria and EW-10 MWO B.S. Chauhan. The evidence is cogent
and consistent. The so-called contradictions pointed out by Mr.
Khanna are, on a careful examination of the depositions of these
witnesses, not material. These witnesses offer a perfectly valid
explanation as to what happened when the tenders were opened and
finalized.
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 17 of 25
27. Two scientific experts were summoned by the Registrar
(Vigilance) from the office of the Central Forensic Scientific
Laboratory („CFSL‟), CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Mr.
Anurag Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer in FSL, Rohini examined
as EW-7, in response to a specific query by the Registrar
(Vigilance) as to whether Annexure P-IIIA can be got photocopied
from another document after it is removed from the notice board or
not, submitted that there was no fiber disturbance on the questioned
documents and "it does not seem to be removed from the notice
board and got xeroxed." The other expert witness Mr. D.R. Handa
(EW-8) deposed that the "possibility of transplantation of a genuine
model of signature on Annexure P-IIIA cannot be ruled out."
28. When Flt Lt. Neha Rana was examined by the Registrar
(Vigilance) she was asked if after receiving the Petitioner‟s letter
dated 11th May 2010 she made enquiries regarding the photocopy
list (Annexure P-IIIA) referred to by him. She stated that she did
make an enquiry and found that "the list was typed at the lowest
clerical level for internal address and pass verification by P&S...in
respect of persons occupying the shops." She produced the original
typed document with the heading „List of Camero SI Shops‟ which
was marked as Ex. EW5/2. All the English words on this document
are in original ink. It is this document which was perhaps
photocopied to produce Annexure P-IIIA. However, the major
difference between the two is that Ex. EW5/2 is undated and bears
no signatures. When both documents were sent for scientific
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 18 of 25
examination to Mr. D.R. Handa he marked the Ex. EW-1/2 (i.e
Annexure P-III A) as Q-2 and the English Body writing (in the
lower part of Ex. EW 5/2) as A-3. He submitted the following
report on 3rd September 2010:
"i) The questioned document marked Q.2 is a
reduced photocopy of the admitted document
marked A-3.
ii) The corresponding strokes of the letters are
exactly on a similar position in both the questioned
and the admitted body writing.
iii) The relative spacing of the dot after the word
occuping (misspelled) is exactly matching when
Q.2 is enlarged to certain extent with A-3.
iv) The peculiar vertical stroke of letter 4 is exactly
matching at the relative position of the printed
vertical line in Q.2 and A-3.
v) The ticked start of letter p in the word occuping
(misspelled) also shows resemblance in admitted
and the questioned body writings.
vi) The apostrophe stroke in the word sh'll is also
exactly superimposing between the questioned and
admitted writings.
vii) A peculiar relatively small vertical staff of the
second letter I in the word sh'll is exactly similar
between both sets of writings.
viii) Apart from that there are minute and
inconspicuous characters, exactly matching
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 19 of 25
between the questioned and the admitting
writings."
29. Further the Registrar (Vigilance) noted in para 26 of his report
as under:
"26. Mr. D.R. Handa, in his statement dated 6th
September 2010 has deposed that he examined the
document Annexure P-IIIA, Exhibit EW-1/2,
marked by him Q.2 and English Body Writing on
a paper Exhibit EW-5/2 marked by him as A-3
with the help of Video Special Comparator -
5000, Twin Video Comparator, Microscope
Magnifying Glass and by applying the principles
of handwriting examination, he found that the
questioned documents Q.2 is a reduced copy of
the admitted English Body Writing A-3. And then
both the documents were examined i.e. by
enlarging Q.2 to certain extent all the characters of
the letters comprising the words superimposed Q-
2 and A-3 resulting the document A-3 has been
used for producing the document Q-2. The letters
of the questioned documents marked Q-2 are
exactly tallying with the admitted documents
marked A-3 on their corresponding position on
superimposition as revealed by Video Special
comparator 5000."
30. The Registrar (Vigilance) then concluded as under:
"28. The opinion of handwriting expert namely Mr.
D.R. Handa (EW-8) who is having vast experience
of 28 years in the field that the document Annexure
P-IIIA (Exhibit EW-1/2)) is a reduced copy of the
admitted English Body Writing i.e. EW-5/2 and that
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 20 of 25
the list Exhibit EW-1/2 and EW-5/2 are exactly
tallying in their corresponding positions on
superimposition as revealed by Video Special
Comparator - 5000 and the relative spacing of the
dot after the word "occuping" (mis-spelt) is exactly
matching, peculiar vertical stroke of letter 4 are
exacting matching at the relative position of the
vertical line of the questioned document and A-3
(list of camero Sl Shops Exhibit EW-5/2). The report
Exhibit EW-8/2 also recites that the ticked start of
letter „p‟ in the word „occuping‟ (mis-spelt) also
shows resemblance in admitted and the questioned
body writings, the apostrophe stroke in the word
"sh‟ll" is also exactly superimposing between the
questioned and admitted writings, a peculiar
relatively small vertical staff of the second letter „I‟
in the word "sh‟ll" is exactly similar between both
sets of writings. The report of handwriting expert
lends credence to the testimony of EW-6 LAC
Santosh Kumar Patel that list Exhibit EW-1/2 is the
photocopy of the list Exhibit EW-5/2.
29. The statement of EW-5 Flt. Lt. Neha Rana
wherein she stated that the photocopy of list which
was annexed by the Petitioner along with his
representation, was having larger font size of the
alphabetical letters mentioned therein, also seems
probable as the Petitioner after coming into
possession of photocopy of list Exhibit EW-5/2 may
have got it photocopied again with reduction of its
contents in size so as to look like a different list. It is
an admitted fact that the Petitioner himself has
retired from Air Force (as stated by him in para 2 of
his affidavit filed during enquiry) as a Sergeant and
he is supposed to be on visiting terms with some of
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 21 of 25
the officials posted in PSI office at clerical level at
least. The list of Camero SI Shop which is marked as
Exhibit EW-5/2 does not bear any date and the same
is not signed by anyone including Flt. Lt. Neha
Rana. In fact said list was never signed by any
official as per statement of EW-6. It appears that the
Petitioner having failed in his attempt to manage the
re-allotment of the shop in question for a further
period of two years till 31st March 2012 as well as in
extending the time for vacating the same beyond 31st
May 2010, he put forward the present story and got
the signatures of Flt. Lt. Neha Rana as well as the
date of 23rd March 2010 forged/ superimposed on
photocopy of list which is Annexure P-IIIA, Exhibit
w-1/2 which was merely meant for verification of
internal addresses and pass verification and the same
nowhere recites that it is a list approved by
competent authority regarding allotment/re-
allotment of the shops situated in various shopping
complexes of Subroto Park."
31. The analysis by the Registrar (Vigilance) of the evidence of the
reports of the two handwriting experts from the CFSL has been
thorough and unimpeachable. The original list Ex. EW5/2 bears
neither any date nor signature of anyone much less Flt. Lt. Neha
Rana. The witnesses referred to lend support to the conclusion that
the Petitioner got signatures of Flt. Lt. Neha Rana as well as the
date of 23rd March 2010 superimposed on the photocopy of the list
which is Annexure P-IIIA (EW-1/2) and has tried to pass it off as
an approved list of allotment of shops when in fact it was only
meant for verification of the internal process. This Court therefore
fully concurs with the prima facie conclusion of the Registrar
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 22 of 25
(Vigilance) that "the signatures of Flt. Lt. Neha Rana on the
document Annexure P-IIIA to the writ petition (page 23 of the
paper book) which is marked as Exhibit EW-1/2 is
forged/superimposed."
32. A detailed enquiry has been undertaken by the Registrar
(Vigilance) pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. The
Petitioner was given a full and effective opportunity to participate
in the enquiry. He examined his own witnesses and cross-examined
the witnesses of the Respondents. His objections to the report of
the Registrar (Vigilance) have been considered. For the reasons
explained, the objections are found to be without substance. It is
remarkable that throughout the proceedings, the Petitioner has
persisted with the stand that Annexure P-IIIA to the writ petition is
a genuine document, when it is not. He has been defiant in that
stand even after the report of the Registrar (Vigilance). The
inescapable conclusion is that the Petitioner has introduced into the
record of this Court a tampered and fabricated document.
33. The Petitioner has miserably failed to make out any case for
grant of any relief as prayed for him. It is plain from the report of
the Registrar (Vigilance), which this Court accepts, that the
Petitioner has based his entire case on a forged and fabricated
document (Annexure P-IIIA) thus brazenly abusing the process of
Court. This is an extremely serious matter that deserves not only
the strongest condemnation by this Court and dismissal of the
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 23 of 25
petition with exemplary costs but appropriate legal measures that
would serve as a deterrent to anyone who is emboldened to produce
before the Court forged and fabricated documents in support of his
claim.
34. This Court is prima facie of the view that offences under
Sections 191,192 and 196 IPC punishable under Section 193 IPC
have been committed by the Petitioner in relation to these
proceedings. In terms of Section 340 (1) CrPC read with Section
195 (1) (b) (i), this Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the
interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into the above
offences for which a written complaint should be made to the
appropriate Metropolitan Magistrate against the Petitioner. The
Registrar General is hereby directed to draw up and make a
complaint in the above terms and send it to the appropriate
Metropolitan Magistrate within four weeks. The said complaint
will be accompanied by a complete certified copy of the entire file,
including the Report of the Registrar (Vigilance) and in a sealed
cover the documents that formed part of the record of enquiry. The
above complaint and documents will be personally delivered by a
Special Messenger to the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and
an appropriate acknowledgment obtained and kept in the records.
35. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- which
shall be paid by the Petitioner to Respondents 1 to 4 within a period
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 24 of 25
of four weeks. The interim order is vacated. The pending
applications are disposed of.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
FEBRUARY 14, 2011
rk
Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 25 of 25
