http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: DY. GENERAL MANAGER,REDESIGNATED AS DY. DIRECTOR, ISB ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUDARSHAN KUMARI & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1894            1996 SCC  (3) 763  JT 1996 (4)   243        1996 SCALE  (3)551

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH       SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 9464 OF 1995      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This case  is a  misuse of the compassionate grounds on which leave  and licence  is sought  to be  granted  to  the widows of  the freedom figther. The appellant had granted to the first  respondent leave  and licence on May 15, 1992 the shop  pales   Counter)  bearing  No.’H’  at  Interstate  Bus Terminal at a concessional rate of 54 of the licence fee. It is not  necessary to  go into  the allegation  regarding her encroachment and misuse of the shop allotted in the, name of the respondent.  An application  was filed on March 21, 1994 for renewal  of the leave and licence, which is now found to be not  signed by  the respondent  A show  cause notice  was issued on 6.5.1994 to the respondent asking her to hand over vacant possession of the counter on 6.6.1994.      A writ  petition No.2483/94 was filed in the High Court of Delhi  on 23.5.1994  for restraining  the appellant  from ejecting her  and issue  a direction  to renew her leave and licence. The  affidavit filed  by the respondent in the High Court was not even signed by her. When the notice was issued to the  appellants (herein), the appellants filed a counter- affidavit on  October 24,  1994 informing  the High Court of Delhi of the forgery committed in the pleadings and also her application for  renewal. The  Court  has  called  upon  the respondent to  appeal before  the Court on 2.11.1994 but she did not  appear.  Ultimately,  the  respondent  appeared  on November 15, 1994. The Court has taken her signatures in the open  Court   and  compared   with  the  signatures  on  the Vakalatnama and  affidavits and  found to  be not consistent with her  admitted signatures.  At that time, the respondent had sought  permission for  withdrawal of  the writ petition with the  liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Accordingly, liberty was granted vide order dated November 15,  1994. Thus this appeal by special leave We are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

informed that possession of the Koasko was taken .      The respondent  also filed  a connected  appeal seeking for renewal  of the  licence. The  question, therefore, that emerges is:  whether  the  respondent  is  entitled  to  the renewal of  the leave  and licence  and whether  liberty  to withdraw the  writ petition was appropriately granted by the High Court?  In the  rejoinder filed  in this  Court  it  is admitted position  that she did not sign the rejoinder also. Somebody seems  to have signed it on her behalf and attested by a Notary. This is the third case where the Court has come across that  the Notaries  have been  misusing  the  liberty given  to  them  by  issuing  such  false  attestations  and indiscriminately attesting  the affidavits  to be  filed  by some party  who have  not been  properly identified. We have seen original  rejoinder affidavit  filed in the Court. They have approached one Notary who had initially attested it and later he  had cancelled  it without even verifying the valid ground  on   which  the   earlier  attestation  came  to  be cancelled, same  was again attested by one Sunder sham Kumar on November  1, 1994.  In view of the admitted position that she herself had not signed and- asked someone who had signed it, it  would obvious  that the person who had signed before him was  not the respondent nor even the person was known to the Notary.  None identified  her before  the Notary, yet he attested the  affidavit. This  would show that some Notaries are absolutely  misusing the licence granted to them without any proper  verification of  the persons  who has signed the document   and    are   attesting    false   affidavits   of impersonators.      In  view   of  the   admitted  fact  that  her  renewal application was  not  signed  by  her,  the  affidavit,  the Vakalatnama were also not signed by her, it would be obvious that she  had taken  the licence and assigned to someone who had committed  forgery. When  we have  asked Shri Goburdhan, learned counsel for her, the name of the real person who was actually running the shop, he has stated that the party does not divulge the person who is running the shop.       Under  these  circumstances,  it  is  clear  that  the compassionate ground  and  the  liberties  given  are  being abused by  these persons.  Therefore, the High Court was not right in giving liberty to the respondent herein to withdraw the writ  petition and  to file another writ petition on the same cause  of action. Hence C.A. No -------------/96 (@ SLP (C) No.6122/95)  is allowed  and  the  appeal  by  Sudershan Kumari C.A.--------/96  (@ SLP  (C) No.9464/95  is dismissed with costs.  Registry is  directed to  issue a notice to the Notary to show cause as to sundarsha Kumar why he should not be prosecuted  and punished for attesting false affidavit of impersonators and  why his  licence should  not be cancelled and he  should not  be  prosecuted  for  giving  such  false certificates.      Post this matter immediately after service of notice on the Notary.