Delhi High Court
Ravinder And Ors vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 April, 2017
$~60 & 67
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28.04.2017
+ W.P.(C) 3613/2017
RAVINDER AND ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 3653/2017
PANNA LAL SHAHU AND ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr M.Hasibuddin, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr Parvinder Chauhan and Mr Nitin Jain, Advocates for
DUSIB.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
28.04.2017
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM No.15863/2017 (exemption) in W.P.(C) No.3613/2017
CM No.16084/2017(exemption) in W.P.(C) No.3653/2017
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 3613/2017 & W.P.(C) 3653/2017
1. The petitioners, by the present petition, seek a direction to the
respondent to re-consider the case of the petitioners based on the fresh
documents that they have been able to trace out and filed with the
respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the case
of the petitioners was earlier examined, they were not in possession of
these documents and they have been able to procure the same
subsequently. He submits that documents have been filed with the
respondents, however, the respondents have refused to reconsider the
case and take into account the fresh documents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that copies of the
documents have already been furnished to the respondent and no
further document is sought to be filed.
4. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that time was
earlier granted to the petitioners and other claimants to file
documents, the entire adjudicatory process took place approximately
three years, and that is the reason why the fresh documents have not
been taken into account.
6. He further submits that in terms of the policy of the respondent,
only ration card and voter identification card are liable to be taken into
account. He submits that it has come to light that some persons had
sought review o the basis of forged and fabricated documents. Since
the petitioners have not placed any of the documents on record of this
petition he is not in a position to state whether the fresh documents
can at all be looked into.
7. Since the petitioners are jhuggi dwellers and the contention is
that they did not possess these documents, when the earlier scrutiny
was taking place, and have been able to procure these documents
subsequently, I deem it expedient and in the interest of justice to
direct the respondents to re-examine the claim of the petitioners.
8. It is clarified that his court has not examined the admissibility
or the genuineness of the additional documents. The Respondents
would be at liberty to ascertain whether the additional documents are
liable to be considered in terms of the policy and are authentic and
genuine. Only if the documents are liable to be considered in terms of
the policy and are found to be authentic and genuine, would the
respondents re-consider the case of the petitioners.
9. It is clarified that only the documents that have already been
submitted by the petitioners would be liable to be considered in the
above terms and the petitioners would not be entitled to furnish any
further documents. However, petitioner would be entitled to produce
the originals of the documents, copies of which have already been
filed.
10. The respondents are directed to complete the process of
reassessment within a period of two months from today.
11. The result of the re-assessment shall be communicated to the
petitioners, through the Advocate on record for the petitioners.
12. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.
13. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 28, 2017
'Sn'
