Ex.Ct. Rambir Singh vs Uoi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4677 Del

$~R-2B
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Decision: August 07, 2012

+                       WP(C) 4986/1999

      EX.CT. RAMBIR SINGH                       ..... Petitioner
           Represented by: Mr.Jayant K.Mehta, Mr.Prasoon
                           Shrivastava and Mr.Sukant Vikram,
                           Advocates.
                versus

      UOI & ORS.                             ..... Respondents
           Represented by: Ms.Reeta Kaul, Advocate and
                           Mohd.Abdus Salam, Asstt.Comdt,
                           CISF.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. The Revision filed by the petitioner has been turned down by the Assistant Inspector General/LNR vide order dated 07/08 January 1999 informing that the DG CISF does not have the revisional power.

2. We note that at the relevant time the revisional power was admittedly vested in the Central Government as per sub-section 3 of Section 9 of the CISF Act 1968 which was in force till it was amended by Act No.40 of 1999 with effect from December 29, 1999.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that if petitioner had forwarded the Revision Petition to a wrong officer, it was the duty of the officer concerned to have returned the Revision Petition so that the petitioner could have filed the same before the Central Government.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent concedes.

5. We note that the petitioner was misled into filing the Revision Petition by addressing the same to the Director General, CISF because Rule 49 of the CISF Rules 1969 required the Revision Petition to be filed before the Director General, CISF.

6. Since the revisional power was vested by the statute i.e. sub-section 3 of Section 9 of the CISF Act 1968 in the Central Government, by virtue of a Rule the power could not be delegated to a delegatee i.e. DG CISF and for this reason the Karnataka High Court had to strike down the rule.

7. However, with the amendment to the CISF Act 1968, as per sub-section 2B of Section 9 a revisional power has now been conferred on such authority as may be prescribed and the CISF Rules 2001, vide Rule 54 have prescribed the Revisional Authorities.

8. Thus, learned counsel jointly state that the petition may be disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a fresh Revision Petition to the DG CISF with a direction that he would decide the same.

9. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh Revision Petition to the DG CISF within 8 weeks from today who shall decide the same within 8 weeks of receipt thereof.

10. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE AUGUST 07, 2012 dk