Tyrance T Benjamin v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

1. The petitioner is seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for alleged wilful defiance of the directions of this Court dated 10.09.2024.

2. Mr. Tushar Sannu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 is present on advance notice and officials from the office of RTO[1] are present physically present in the Court on advance notice.

3. It appears that there was an issue about certain modification that were carried out by the RTO, Mathura, State of Uttar Pradesh as regards endorsement of the category of the driving license issued in

1 Regional Transport Office favour of the petitioner. There was also an issue about some endorsement of the category of the driving license made by the RTO, Gurgaon. This Court vide impugned order dated 10.09.2024 referred to the earlier directions passed by this Court on 24.07.2024, which are as under:

4. The learned Single Judge of this Court thereafter referred to the hearing conducted on 28.08.2024 and 02.09.2025 during which two status reports dated 02.09.2024 and 01.09.2024 and the following directions came to be passed: “6. Having perused the Status Reports filed by the respondents, it is seen that the respondents vide Annexure R/A have reflected the correct COV details which can be seen from print out dated 02.09.2024. The document appears to have been issued from the Transport Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, Zonal Office, North West District-II, Rohini.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that if the directions passed by this Court on 15.01.2024 are perused in right perspective, the same would clearly indicate that there were obligations imposed on the part of the official respondents to carry out the correction in webpage/data extracted (Annexure P- 2 of the main writ petition). He has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph no.5 of the aforesaid order.

8. Paragraph no.5 of the said order reads as under:- "5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent nos.[1] and 2 to carry out the necessary rectification in the data depicted on its website so as to ensure that the aforesaid details are correctly recorded therein. In particular, corrections are to be carried out in the webpages/ data extracted and filed as Annexure P-2 of the present petition, so that the same is in consonance with the aforesaid status report filed on behalf of respondent nos.[1] and 3."

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents explains from the Status Reports dated 02.09.2024 and 06.09.2024 that Annexure P-2 is a print out obtained from backend office, Sarai Kale Khan and the said document is generated on the basis of data entered in the concerned system as was made available by the office of RTA Gurugram, (TR). He, therefore, explains that with respect to the data, henceforth, being reflected on the official website of respondents is concerned, the same stands corrected. He, however, submits that since the data in RTA Gurugram, (TR) and RTA Mathura, further requires correction and so long as the same is not corrected, the said backend office will continue to reflect the already captured details. According to him, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, as the respondents have correctly shown the details of the license vide Annexure R/A.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on the other hand submits that once the directions passed by this Court have not been complied with in its letter and spirit, the respondents be either punished or be further directed to carry out the complete correction including in Annexure P - 2.

11. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perusing the record, the Court is of the considered opinion that RTA Gurugram and RTA Mathura, in their respective records appears to have incorrectly captured the details of the petitioner 's license.

12. The official respondents in the instant case have tried to resolve the said controversy and have shown to the Court that various steps have been taken by them while bringing the present anomaly to the notice of the concerned offices at RTA Gurugram and RTA Mathura.

13. The respondents, at this stage, further submit that they are still trying to assist the petitioner to get the controversy at hand resolved. The official respondents undertake to assist the petitioner in that behalf. Since the modification in the record of the concerned offices of RTA Gurugram and RTA Mathura is not within the control of the present respondents, they cannot be held guilty for the contempt. They, however, are directed to assist the petitioner in getting the present anomaly resolved.

14. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to get into touch with the official respondents and to take necessary steps in getting the record corrected in the office of RTA Gurugram and RTA Mathura.

15. The official respondents are also directed to deal with the issue with due expedition.”