Delhi High Court
Dhian Chand vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 March, 2015
$~12, 13 & 14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and Order: 11th March, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 1463/2015
DHIAN CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through None.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with
Mr. Arnav Kumar & Mr. Abhishek
Choudhary, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Addl. Standing
Counsel with Mr. Manish Kumar
Vikkey, Adv. for R-2 to 4.
+ W.P.(C) 1466/2015
NARINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through None.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with
Mr. Arnav Kumar & Mr. Abhishek
Choudhary, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Addl. Standing
Counsel with Mr. Manish Kumar
Vikkey, Adv. for R-2 to 4.
+ W.P.(C) 1468/2015
SATISH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through None.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with
Mr. Arnav Kumar & Mr. Abhishek
Choudhary, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Addl. Standing
Counsel with Mr. Manish Kumar
Vikkey, Adv. for R-2 to 4.
W.P. (C) No.1463/2015, W.P. (C) No.1466/2015 Page 1 of 5
& W.P. (C) No.1468/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
ORDER
% 11.03.2015
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
C.M. Appl. Nos. 2571-72/2015 in W.P. (C) No. 1463/2015
C.M. Appl. Nos. 2574-75/2015 in W.P. (C) No. 1466/2015
C.M. Appl. Nos. 2577-78/2015 in W.P. (C) No. 1468/2015
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
W.P. (C) No. 1463/2015, W.P. (C) No. 1466/2015 & W.P. (C) No.
1468/2015
1. By these petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, petitioners herein seek to challenge the impugned order dated
24.09.2013 passed in O.A. No.2920/2011 by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the
Original Application filed by the petitioners on the ground that HMV
driving licences were not issued in the name of the petitioners.
2. There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioners. Even on the last
date, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioners.
3. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the
respondents and also gone through the impugned order as well as the
material placed on record.
4. The issue in the present matters is squarely covered by the judgment
& W.P. (C) No.1468/2015
of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Shri Rajni Kant v. The
Commissioner of Police & Anr., W.P.(C) 961/2015. In the batch of many
such petitions, the common challenge raised was that these candidates were
found to be in possession of fake driving licenses purported to have been
issued in their favour by the respective Transport Authorities. The common
grievance raised by these petitioners was that before taking a decision to
cancel their candidature the respondents ought to have conducted a detailed
inquiry so as to give sufficient opportunity to all these petitioners to
participate in the same and thereafter could have arrived at a just and fair
decision on the validity and genuineness of the driving licences produced by
them.
5. On perusal of the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal we find that
on verification of the driving licence of these petitioners, the Issuing
Authority, i.e. District Transport Officer, intimated that the driving licenses
produced by the petitioners were false and fabricated since the driving
licenses were not issued to the applicants. Inspector of Crime Branch was
deputed to probe into the matter and as per the report submitted by him, the
driving licences were not issued in the name of the petitioners.
6. Keeping in view the fact that the decision of the learned Tribunal is
based on the inquiry conducted by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police, we
hardly find any tangible reason to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Tribunal. The Tribunal has also referred to the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance
Company Limited, (2011) 11 SCC 269, wherein the Supreme Court held
that at the time of giving employment to a driver, the owner is required to be
& W.P. (C) No.1468/2015
satisfied apropos the correctness and genuineness of the licence he was
holding. The tribunal also went on to discuss the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance v. Kamla and Ors.
(2001) 4 SCC 342, wherein it was held:
"As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a
fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off
merely on account of some officer renewing the same
with or without knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of the
Act only empowers any licensing authority to "renew a
driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act
with effect from the date of its expiry." No licensing
authority has the power to renew a fake licence and,
therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a
fake licence as genuine. Any counterfeit document
showing that it contains a purported order of a statutory
authority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact
that other persons including some statutory authorities
would have acted on the document unwittingly on the
assumption that it is genuine.
The observation of the Division Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Sucha Singh (supra) that renewal of a document which
purports to be a driving licence, will robe even a forged
document with validity on account of Section 15 of the
Act, propounds a very dangerous proposition. If that
proposition is allowed to stand as a legal principle, it
may, no doubt, thrill counterfeiters the world over as
they would be encouraged to manufacture fake
documents in a legion. What was originally a forgery
would remain null and void forever and it would not
acquire legal validity at any time by whatever process of
sanctification subsequently done on it. Forgery is
antithesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a
forgery."
& W.P. (C) No.1468/2015
Similarly in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Lehru
and Others (2003) 3 SCC 338 the Apex Court held:
"When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have
to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the
driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it
looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out
whether the licence has in fact been issued by a
competent authority or not. The owner would then take
the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is
competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the
driver......."
7. The genuineness and authenticity of the driving licence is one of the
indispensable conditions for considering the petitioner's appointment and
for assessing his eligibility for the said post. Based on the inquiry report
submitted by the Crime Branch, the petitioners were duly served with the
show cause notice, however they sent a vague reply to the same. Thus, there
is no infraction of principles of natural justice by the respondents. In such
circumstances, we do not find any illegality, perversity, or any ground for
interfering with the impugned order dated 24.09.2013 passed in O.A . No.
2920/2011 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, the
present petitions are dismissed.
8. No costs.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
I.S.MEHTA, J
MARCH 11, 2015/km
& W.P. (C) No.1468/2015
