Delhi High Court
Ravi Dabas vs Delhi Police And Anr. on 12 July, 2022
$~10
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 12.07.2022
+ W.P.(C) 4777/2019 and CM No.34192/2019
RAVI DABAS ..... Petitioner
versus
DELHI POLICE AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jai Deep Malik and Mr. C.M. Sangwan,
Advocates
For the Respondent: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel
with Mr. Uday Singh Ahlawat, Mr. N.K.
Singh, Mrs. Tania Ahlawat, Mrs. Palak
Rohmetra and Mr. Sidhhant Tyagi,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition.
2. The issue involved in the present case was with regard to the
medical fitness of the Petitioner, who was aspiring for the post of
Constable (Ex.) in the Delhi Police. In the initial physical fitness test,
Petitioner failed to qualify on the ground of his vision being not upto
the required mark.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2022
19:48:27
3. On 02.06.2022, we noticed that there were 4 different reports
with regard to the vision of the Petitioner, the last report being of Dr.
Rajendra Prasad, Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS, New Delhi,
which had reported the vision of the Petitioner as 6/6. In view of the
mass variance in the reports that were produced before this Court, this
Court directed the Petitioner to appear before a fresh Medical Board to
be constituted at Guru Nanak Eye Centre for examination.
4. On 17.06.2022, one person appeared before the Medical Board.
The doctors were of the view that the signatures of the person who had
appeared before the Medical Board did not tally with the signatures in
the Police records. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the
Respondents to produce the original signatures as well as the bio
metric record available in the police records and Petitioner was
thereafter required to appear on 29.06.2022.
5. Petitioner did not appear on 29.06.2022 and 01.07.2022 before
the Medical Board.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is no
longer interested in pursuing the said petition and seeks leave to
withdraw the petition.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that it appears to
be a case of impersonation. She, however, on instructions, submits that
no further steps have been taken by the Respondents on the said
averment.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner disputes that it is a case of
impersonation. He submits that the Petitioner does not wish to pursue
the said petition as he has secured some private employment.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2022
19:48:27
9. Without getting into the averment of the Respondent or the
issue of impersonation, in view of the fact that the Tribunal as well as
this Court was made to spend substantial time in adjudicating the
petition and having the Petitioner appear before the repeated Medical
Boards, we are of the view that this is a fit case where costs should be
imposed on the Petitioner even where Petitioner seeks to withdraw the
petition.
10. In view of the above, petition and the application filed herewith
are dismissed as withdrawn, however, with costs of Rs.30,000/- to be
deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society, 18200100001081,
UCO Bank, IFSC Code - UCBA0001820. The costs be deposited
within a period of four weeks. In case costs is not deposited,
Respondents are at liberty to approach this Court.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
JULY 12, 2022
'yg'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:15.07.2022
19:48:27
