advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Monday, November 25, 2013

Use of excess police power on peaceful pro-testators is against law and is an offence The law is now well settled that the State or its functionaries cannot deprive any person of his life which includes right to live with human dignity except in accordance with law. whether petitioners have made out a case that their fundamental right to live with human dignity guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been invaded, atleast prima facie, so as to direct for an independent investigation/enquiry so that the perpetrators may not get away scot free if petitioners’ case is found true. = BEENU RAWAT & ORS ... PETITIONERS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS = published in http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wc446.pdf



Use of excess police power on peaceful pro-testators is against law and is an offence
The law is now well settled that the State or its 
functionaries cannot deprive any person of his life 
which includes right to live with human dignity except 
in accordance with law. 

whether petitioners have made out a 
case that their fundamental right to live with human 
dignity guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of 
India has been invaded, atleast prima facie, so as to 
direct for an independent investigation/enquiry so that 
the perpetrators may not get away scot free if 
petitioners’ case is found true. =

The counter 
version of the respondents that the petitioners 
indulged in rioting and damaged public property is 
neither supported by photographs contained in Annexure 
R.2 (colly) nor by the video footage shows to this 
Court. 

The video 
footage shown to us revealed that none of the 
protestors were carrying any arms or even brickbats in 
course of the protest. The initial part of the 
incident discloses lack of any bitterness and almost a 
friendly atmosphere. 
Thereafter, when copy of the FIR 
was shown from a distance but not made available to any 
one, the slogans increased and the tone could be 
perceived by some persons as irritating. 
Barring some 
protestors rest were pushed out of the gate of police 
station without any resistance or any untoward 
incident. 
The crowd outside the gate apparently did 
not disperse. 
The last part of the video footage 
fleetingly shows use of lathis by the police men upon 
the protestors. 
Thereafter, the recording was stopped 
15and appears to have been resumed after lapse of 
sometime to show some broken glass panes, brickbats in 
very limited number and some broken spectacles lying on 
the ground, a grim reminder of use of force.
No part of the video footage 
shows the crowd to be very large or indulging in any 
physical violence. Even if this version in the counter 
affidavit is accepted in part, one is left to wonder 
why the petitioners who had injuries on their bodies 
had to be arrested instead of allowing them to disperse 
with the crowd which was allegedly large and violent. 
It is also intriguing as to why the FIR bearing 
No.251/13 for rioting etc. was registered at 5.35 p.m. 
after eighteen persons were apprehended at 3.30 p.m. 
and not before their arrest if they had vandalized the 
18police station and caused damage to the public 
property.
There is no 
dispute that petitioners have received injuries but 
according to counter affidavit, these were due to some 
of the protestors falling down on the vehicles parked 
17along the walls of the compound and there was no lathi 
charge or any act of beating of the protestors. Such 
statement in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit 
cannot be accepted in view of the last part of the 
video footage already noted earlier.

Writ Allowed:- 
In that view of the 
matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the 
following directions:-
(1) Investigation of FIR No.251/13, as per 
order of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, dated 
31.10.2013 shall be carried out by Special 
Investigation Team and not by the police officials 
of P.S. Gokul Puri.
(2) The complaint of the petitioners as made 
before this Court regarding violation of their 
fundamental right to life and liberty shall be 
enquired into by the National Human Rights 
Commission expeditiously. For that purpose the 
Commission may use its statutory powers including 
those under Sections 13 and 14 of the Protection 
of Human Rights Act, 1993.
23(3) The Commission shall take further required 
steps and action as per law after concluding the 
enquiry/investigation so that persons(s) found 
guilty may be subjected to required penalty 
according to law, without undue delay.
21. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid 
extent.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.446 OF 2013
 BEENU RAWAT & ORS ... PETITIONERS
VS.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH,J.
The petitioners claim to be young volunteers of 
Aam Aadmi Party’ (AAP) engaged in selfless work for 
the improvement of democratic institutions of this 
country and also fight for justice
They have 
approached this Court under Article 32 of the 
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other 
writ or direction to order an independent 
investigation by a Special Investigation 
Team into the abovementioned incident of 
police atrocities which took place on 
19.06.2013 at Gokul Puri Police Station 
against the petitioners and if such 
allegations are found correct, pass further 
consequential and necessary directions, 
including initiation of criminal 
prosecution as well as disciplinary 
proceedings against the police officers of 
the Delhi Police found involved and also 
against those senior police officers at 
whose behest this vindictive act of 
atrocity was done;
(b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other 
writ or direction to award monetary 
compensation to the petitioners for their 
illegal arrest and torture by the Delhi 
Police which has resulted in gross 
violation of their fundamental rights to 
live with dignity as guaranteed under 
Article 21 of the Constitution of India;
(c) pass such other and further order/s as 
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper 
on the facts and in the circumstances of 
the case.”
2. The incident of 19.06.2013 at Gokal Puri Police 
Station in Delhi which is mentioned in prayer no. (a) 
noted above, occurred in course of a protest by the 
volunteers of (AAP) at Gokal Puri Police Station since 
2morning hours. 
The protestors wanted registration of an 
FIR in respect of an alleged occurrence of rape of a 
poor woman by two persons in Bhagirathi Vihar. 
Allegedly the police was reluctant to register the FIR 
and hence a number of volunteers including the 
petitioners joined the protest. The FIR was ultimately 
registered around 2.30 p.m. and the protestors were 
informed of the same. A demand was made for a copy of 
the FIR. According to respondents the copy could not 
be given to others because of the nature of the alleged 
crime which requires that name of the victim be not 
disclosed. According to petitioners the copy of the 
FIR was not given even to victim’s husband. It is the 
case of the petitioners that when they were planning to 
wind up the protest, they were suddenly rounded up by a 
large number of policemen and mercilessly beaten by 
them. The manner of chase and beating by lathi gave an 
impression to the petitioners that the police action 
was not to disperse the petitioners but to teach them a 
lesson. As per allegations, the police also used 
3abusive language and told the protestors that they will 
be taught a lesson so that they do not indulge in such 
kind of protests in future. Initially, police arrested 
seventeen volunteers but three of them were let off as 
they were minor girls. Subsequently, petitioner Nos. 2 
and 10 were also taken into custody and allegedly 
beaten in police custody although they claimed that 
they had come to the police station later only to 
enquire about the incident. The nineteen petitioners 
claim to have sustained serious injuries on head, back, 
arm and legs. One of them (petitioner no.17) has 
sustained fracture in lower ulna but he managed to run 
away.
3. According to the case of the petitioners the police 
had indulged in unlawful use of force and inflicted 
injuries before arrest and also during custody, leading 
to injuries to the petitioners; the arrest was unlawful 
which is sought to be justified by fabricated evidence 
for rioting etc.; by breaking window glasses and 
4tearing of some papers in the police station. According 
to the petitioners a serious case was attempted to be 
made out through subsequent statement of one ASI of 
police, Ms. Sushila. There is no such incident 
mentioned in the FIR bearing no. 251/2013 dated 
19.06.2013 registered at P.S. Gokul Puri and even 
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate she had 
alleged that only her scarf (dupatta) was pulled by 
protestors. The petitioners have claimed that the 
Commissioner of police, Delhi, has made an incorrect 
statement that Delhi police has videos of protestors 
vandalizing the police station. To decide the case it 
is not necessary for this Court to delve deep into 
allegations made by the petitioners or those against 
them by the police which has lodged a criminal case of 
rioting etc. as noted above. This is because there is 
no prayer made in this writ petition seeking any kind 
of intervention in the investigation of police case 
registered against the petitioners.
Even the first 
prayer made by the petitioners is to order an 
5independent investigation by a Special Investigation 
Team (SIT) into the incident of 19.06.2013 to find out 
the truthfulness of allegations of police atrocities 
and if such allegations are found right then further 
consequential orders be passed for criminal prosecution 
as well as disciplinary action against the concerned 
police officers. Hence, the issue before the Court is 
a limited one requiring a careful appraisal of relevant 
facts and circumstances for coming to a conclusion as 
to whether the petitioners have made out a case for 
issuing a direction to order an independent 
investigation into the alleged incident of 19.06.2013 
at Gokal Puri Police Station, Delhi or not.
4. In this background a look at the counter affidavit 
on behalf of the respondents discloses that the version 
given by the police attempts to portray a picture that 
when the prosecutrix or the victim of alleged rape came 
to the police station along with her husband at about 
9.00 a.m. on 19.06.2013, the S.H.O. immediately deputed 
6a lady A.S.I., Ms. Sushila to investigate into the 
matter and a female counselor, Mrs. Dinesh Panchal from 
a local NGO was also called for the aid of prosecutrix. 
A Daily Diary entry to this effect bearing no.11-A was 
made at 9.10 a.m. and a statement of the victim was 
recorded by the lady A.S.I. in presence of counselor 
from the NGO. On that basis FIR No. 250/13 was 
registered under Section 376-D/506 of the Indian Penal 
Code at 10.05 a.m. and thereafter the victim was sent 
for medical examination to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, 
New Delhi. The fact of lodging of the FIR was conveyed 
to the protestors but still by 12.00 noon their number 
increased to 100-125 which included 20-25 women. A 
lady ASI was deputed to control the female protestors. 
Demand for getting a copy of FIR was declined by the 
S.H.O. with a view not to reveal the identity of the 
victim.
5. It is found that the counter version does not deny 
or even refer to the presence of husband of the victim 
7and there is no disclosure of any reason as to why copy 
of the FIR was not supplied to the victim or her 
husband. Had that been done, the bone of contention 
between the rivals could have been totally taken care 
of.
6. According to the counter affidavit the protestors 
were all around the compound of the police station and 
had also entered the corridor thus blocking the entry 
and exit of the officials and obstructing them in 
performing their official duties. The protestors 
climbed the compound walls and shouted slogans. They 
abused the police officials and some of them pelted 
stones causing damage to building windows and vehicles. 
The police staff was trapped inside the police station 
being out-numbered by the large number of protestors. 
The violent acts of the crowd allegedly caused injuries 
to five police personnels. Their injury reports have 
been annexed as Annexure R.1 (colly). The lady A.S.I. 
engaged in controlling the women protestors was 
8manhandled by the crowd and sustained injuries. To 
support the claim that protestors had entered the 
premises, blocked entry to the police station, pelted 
stones and damaged public property, some photographs 
have been brought on record as Annexure R.2 (colly).
7. Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit is crucial as 
it relates to the most significant part of the incident 
in which injuries were caused to some of the 
petitioners leading to their arrest. Paragraph 5 runs 
as follows:-
“5. As the crowd had become 
uncontrollable, the SHO, PS Gokul Puri 
reported the situation to the senior 
officers and asked for the deployment of 
additional police force from adjoining 
Police Stations, PS Jyoti Nagar and PS 
Bhajan Pura, to control the crowd. With the 
help of the additional force, efforts were 
made to disperse the crowd and help the 
officials trapped inside the Police Station 
Gokul Puri. Arrival of the additional 
force from the adjoining police stations 
created panic amongst the protestors and 
they started dispersing in various 
directions. Some of the protestors who had 
climbed the walls of the Police Station 
fell down on the vehicles parked by the 
wall and sustained injuries on their own. 
9There was no lathi charge or any act of 
beating of the protestors as wrongly 
alleged by the Petitioners.”
8. It has also been disclosed in the counter affidavit 
that till 3.30 p.m. eighteen persons were apprehended 
on the spot which included three minor girls, four 
women and eleven men. FIR was registered against the 
protestors bearing no.251/13 at 5.35 p.m. The three 
minor girls were let off at about 7.00 p.m. when their 
parents arrived. The remaining fifteen were however 
arrested. They were sent for medical examination to 
Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital and then produced before 
the Duty Magistrate at 2.20 a.m. in the morning and 
then sent to Tihar jail. Petitioner No. 10-Narender 
Rawat, brother of minor petitioner no.1 Beenu Rawat and 
also petitioner no.4-Pushpa is claimed to have been 
arrested in the morning of 20.06.2013 because he had 
escaped on the previous date. Petitioner No.17 along 
with four other persons had also allegedly escaped and 
they were arrested on 21.08.2013.
109. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit a 
submission has been advanced that petitioners are 
trying to mislead this Court by making wrong 
allegations that police used excessive force against 
them. The defense in this paragraph is that the 
protestors had outnumbered and over run the police 
officers at police station Gokal Puri, obstructing them 
from performing their official duties and caused damage 
to public property on the pretext of helping a rape 
victim. 
10. According to respondents, there was no lapse on 
behalf of the police to help the prosecutrix and the 
police resorted to the minimal use of force only enough 
to disperse the large violent crowd and safeguard the 
police personnel trapped inside the police station.
11. As indicated earlier, at the present stage when the 
criminal case is under investigation it will not be 
proper for this Court to finally decide any issue 
11relating to that case. The pendency of investigation 
in that case notwithstanding, this Court has to decide 
the limited issue 
whether petitioners have made out a 
case that their fundamental right to live with human 
dignity guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of 
India has been invaded, atleast prima facie, so as to 
direct for an independent investigation/enquiry so that 
the perpetrators may not get away scot free if 
petitioners’ case is found true. 
12. In part III of the Constitution of India Article 
21 enjoys special status. Right to life and Right to 
liberty are of historical importance. Rise of modern 
democratic state is attributable to a long drawn battle 
waged by ordinary people against the sovereign power. 

The law is now well settled that the State or its 
functionaries cannot deprive any person of his life 
which includes right to live with human dignity except 
in accordance with law. 
The maximum threat to such 
fundamental right is perceptible when any kind of 
12protest or agitation is directed against the police 
force for reasons which are self-evident. 
Police is 
licensed to carry arms for protecting the people. 
This 
itself creates a situation where the power of arms may 
be misused under the mistaken belief in the absolutism 
of the police power or on account of lack of 
sensitivity to the democratic rights of the people to 
register peaceful protest, against wrongs, especially 
that of public functionaries. 
The submissions on 
behalf of respondents that nobody can be permitted to 
paralyse the functioning of police or other State 
institutions in a name of public protest can not be 
rejected off hand because it is only a corollary of the 
right to protest peacefully; 
proverbially the other 
side of the coin which corroborates the well accepted 
principle that rights without duties tend to degenerate 
into license for misuse of rights. In a given case, 
the facts may lead to such conclusions. Hence facts 
and circumstances in such cases need to be scrutinized 
carefully.
1313. In the present case also the relevant facts require 
to be noticed in order to arrive at a conclusion 
whether the petitioners’ prayers deserve to be allowed 
or not. 
The petitioners are ordinary persons with 
clean antecedents. The injuries caused to the 
petitioners in the incident have not been denied as 
they are supported by medical reports. 
So far as 
injuries to some of the police officers are concerned, 
instead of forming our own opinion, we may only refer 
to the order dated 22.06.2013 passed by the Vacation 
Judge (NE)/Additional Sessions Judge contained in 
Annexure P.11.
 While granting bail to 11 applicants, in 
paragraph 6, the learned Judge had noted that the MLCs 
of five police officials indicate that they have 
suffered from minor injuries which were in the form of 
scratches and abrasion only and the FIR does not 
indicate that the lady police officials were assaulted 
or any attempt to outrage their modesty was made by the 
accused persons.
1414. Since a claim was made that unlawful acts of the 
protestors had been recorded through videography which 
was available with the respondents, learned Additional 
Solicitor General Sidharth Luthra made arrangements for 
screening of the video tape for our perusal. 
The video 
footage shown to us revealed that none of the 
protestors were carrying any arms or even brickbats in 
course of the protest. The initial part of the 
incident discloses lack of any bitterness and almost a 
friendly atmosphere. 
Thereafter, when copy of the FIR 
was shown from a distance but not made available to any 
one, the slogans increased and the tone could be 
perceived by some persons as irritating. 
Barring some 
protestors rest were pushed out of the gate of police 
station without any resistance or any untoward 
incident. 
The crowd outside the gate apparently did 
not disperse. 
The last part of the video footage 
fleetingly shows use of lathis by the police men upon 
the protestors. 
Thereafter, the recording was stopped 
15and appears to have been resumed after lapse of 
sometime to show some broken glass panes, brickbats in 
very limited number and some broken spectacles lying on 
the ground, a grim reminder of use of force.
15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners Mr. 
Shanti Bhushan has relied upon some past incidents, 
specially one relating to unfortunate death of a police 
constable in the course of demonstration against the 
gang rape to a paramedical student “Damini” in 
December, 2012, followed by another unfortunate case of 
a five years’ old victim “Gudiya” which led to protest 
by members of AAP and in course of the same petitioner 
no.1 was slapped by an Assistant Commissioner of Police 
of Delhi force which led to suspension of the said ACP. 
He also referred to some allegations against the 
erstwhile Delhi Police commissioner. On the basis of 
those incidents and allegation it was submitted that 
Delhi police cannot be relied for fair investigation in 
a case of present nature involving members of ‘AAP’ and 
16therefore the Court should order for fair investigation 
by an independent agency.
16. On the other hand, Mr. Luthra submitted that police 
itself acted fairly and did not submit charge-sheet 
against any of the accused persons arrested for causing 
death of constable Subhash Tomar. He pointed out that 
the concerned ACP who had slapped petitioner No.1 was 
placed under suspension. According to him the 
allegations that the erstwhile Delhi Police 
Commissioner was close to a white collared criminal, 
has no substance and that matter cannot have any effect 
upon the investigation of the present incident.
17. In our considered view it is not necessary to 
examine the effect of earlier incidents for the purpose 
of deciding the present writ petition. 
There is no 
dispute that petitioners have received injuries but 
according to counter affidavit, these were due to some 
of the protestors falling down on the vehicles parked 
17along the walls of the compound and there was no lathi 
charge or any act of beating of the protestors. Such 
statement in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit 
cannot be accepted in view of the last part of the 
video footage already noted earlier.
A glimpse of 
action taken by the police is available in paragraph 8 
of the counter affidavit wherein it is claimed that 
Police resorted to minimal use of force which was only 
enough to disperse a large violent crowd and safeguard 
the police personnel. 
No part of the video footage 
shows the crowd to be very large or indulging in any 
physical violence. Even if this version in the counter 
affidavit is accepted in part, one is left to wonder 
why the petitioners who had injuries on their bodies 
had to be arrested instead of allowing them to disperse 
with the crowd which was allegedly large and violent. 
It is also intriguing as to why the FIR bearing 
No.251/13 for rioting etc. was registered at 5.35 p.m. 
after eighteen persons were apprehended at 3.30 p.m. 
and not before their arrest if they had vandalized the 
18police station and caused damage to the public 
property.
18. In the light of the aforesaid discussions and the 
fact that the video footage recorded at the instance of 
the police does not show acts of rioting or any arms or 
brickbats in the hands of the protestors and the 
recording was stopped as soon as police started using 
lathis upon the protestor, we are left with no option 
but to hold, at least prima facie, that in the incident 
in question, peaceful protestors were subjected to 
beating by lathis etc. by the police force which 
included policemen from the concerned police station as 
well as force called from adjoining police station, 
P.S. Jyoti Nagar and P.S. Bhajanpura. The counter 
version of the respondents that the petitioners 
indulged in rioting and damaged public property is 
neither supported by photographs contained in Annexure 
R.2 (colly) nor by the video footage shows to this 
Court. 
In that view of the matter, the whole incident 
19of 19.06.2013 at Gokul Puri Police Station, District 
North-East, Delhi requires to be investigated/enquired 
by an independent agency or by a Special Investigation 
Team. 
Considering the possibility of our arriving at 
this opinion we had requested learned counsel for the 
rival parties to provide us proposals containing names 
of some persons who could be entrusted with conducting 
investigation in the said incident. 
On behalf of the 
petitioners two names have been proposed which are as 
follows:
1. Sh. I.C.Dwivedi, IPS (RTD.),
Former Director General of Police, 
Uttar Pradesh, 
Address: 9/26, Vishal Khand, Gomati 
Nagar, Lucknow.
2. Sh. N.Dilip Kumar, IPS (Retired)
 Special Commissioner Delhi Police
also worked as Joint Commissioner of 
police (Vigilance) Delhi Police
Worked in CBI for seven years
20Address: 16 A, Rajpura Road, Civil 
Lines, Delhi.
19. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents 
only a letter addressed to Sh. Sidharth Luthra, leaned 
Additional Solicitor General along with copy of an 
order dated 31.10.2013 issued from the office of 
Commissioner of Police, Delhi, has been submitted to us 
to show that since during the course of hearing of this 
matter this Court had expressed the need for an 
impartial or fair investigation by some other competent 
setup, the Commissioner of Police Delhi has approved 
for formation of a Special Investigation Team headed by 
Sh. Bhisham Singh DCP/Crime to work under close 
supervision of Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime, 
Delhi.
20. So far as investigation of the FIR No. 251/13 is 
concerned, in our considered view it has rightly been 
transferred from police station Gokal Puri to a Special 
Investigation Team.
 However that can not take care of 
the petitioners’ grievances that they have been 
21subjected to excessive use of force and abuses etc. and 
that the force used was not at all justified and hence 
they have been deprived of their fundamental right to a 
life of dignity. 
In view of our prima facie findings 
noted above, we are of the view that the grievances of 
the petitioners require investigation by an authority 
having statutory jurisdiction in such matters. 
If the 
State had itself suggested names of the persons who 
could constitute Special Investigation Team for the 
purpose, the matter would have been different and we 
could have considered to direct for formation of such a 
team by the State by selecting persons from the names 
suggested by the parties.
 But in the absence of such 
option, we direct the National Human Rights Commission 
to enquire into the complaint of the petitioners 
regarding violation of their fundamental rights 
particularly one under Article 21 of the Constitution 
of India. 
Such direction is granted in view of Section 
12(A) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. 
Under that Act the definition of “Human Rights” is 
22large enough to include rights relating to life, 
liberty, equality and dignity of the individual 
guaranteed by the Constitution. 
In that view of the 
matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the 
following directions:-
(1) Investigation of FIR No.251/13, as per 
order of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, dated 
31.10.2013 shall be carried out by Special 
Investigation Team and not by the police officials 
of P.S. Gokul Puri.
(2) The complaint of the petitioners as made 
before this Court regarding violation of their 
fundamental right to life and liberty shall be 
enquired into by the National Human Rights 
Commission expeditiously. For that purpose the 
Commission may use its statutory powers including 
those under Sections 13 and 14 of the Protection 
of Human Rights Act, 1993.
23(3) The Commission shall take further required 
steps and action as per law after concluding the 
enquiry/investigation so that persons(s) found 
guilty may be subjected to required penalty 
according to law, without undue delay.
21. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid 
extent.
…………………………………………………J.
 (G.S. Singhvi)
…………………………………………………J. 
(Shiva Kirti Singh)
…………………………………………………J. 
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi,
November 19, 2013 
24ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.3 SECTION PIL
(for Judgment)
 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 446 OF 2013
BEENU RAWAT & ORS. Petitioner(s)
 VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date: 19/11/2013 This Petition was called on for Judgment
 today.
For Petitioner(s)
 Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
 Mr. D.S. Mahra ,Adv
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh 
pronounced the Judgment of the Bench comprising 
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi, His Lordship and 
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan.
The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent 
indicated in the Judgment.
 (Rajesh Dham) (Renu Diwan)
 Court Master Court Master
 (signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
25

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.