Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decision delivered on: 10.11.2022
SOHA ASSOCIATES ......Petitioner
Through: Mr Abhishek Dutta, Ms Ikshita Parihar and Mr N.K. Kantawala, Advs.
Through: Ms Ritu Reniwal, Adv. for R-1/UOI.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
CM No.47943/2022
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 15421/2022&CM No.47942/2022[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. Mr Abhishek Dutta, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that an advance copy of the case papers was served on the respondents.
3. We may note, that apart from MsRituReniwal, who appears on behalf of respondent no.1/Union of India (UOI), there is no representation on behalf of respondent nos.[2] to 4.
4. In view of the direction that we propose to pass, at this stage, no notice is required to be issued to the reaming respondents, who are not represented today.
5. The substantive prayers sought in the writ petition read as follows: “(a) A Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ/Order ordirection quashing and setting aside the summonses dated17.10.2022 issued by the Respondent No.2. (b) A Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate Writ/Order ordirection restraining the DGGI from in any manner proceedingwith the enquiry in pursuance of summonses dated 17.10.2022or through any other summons.
(c) A Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ/Order ordirection quashing and setting aside the cancellation of theRegistration certificate and restoring the same or a Writ in thenature of Mandamus or any other writ/direction or orderdirecting the Respondent No.2 to duly decide the applicationdated 26.07.2021 [sic: 28.07.2021].”
6. A perusal of the two impugned summons of even date i.e., 17.10.2022 would show, that the concerned person was required to appear before the statutory authority i.e., one Mr Navin Karnwal, Senior Intelligence Officer on 31.10.2022 and 01.11.2022.
7. We are informed by Mr Dutta, that the addressee of the aforementioned impugned summons did not appear on the given dates.
8. We are also informed by Mr Dutta, that an e-mail dated 01.11.2022 was received by the petitioner, in response to an e-mail dated 30.10.2022, wherein several objections have been taken.
9. Mr Dutta says, that the petitioner received, on 09.11.2022, a message via WhatsApp, seeking appearance of the person (to whom the impugned summons were directed) on 11.11.2022.
10. According to us, insofar as the prayer clauses (a) and (b) are concerned, they have been rendered inefficacious, as the said summons are no longer alive. 10.[1] However, with regard to the concerns raised by the petitioner, which are articulated in the e-mail dated 30.10.2022, the statutory authority will take that into account, while dealing with the matter.
11. Insofar as the other substantive prayers are concerned, which relates to cancellation of registration certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, it is not disputed that an application dated 28.07.2021 for revocation of the said order has already been filed.
12. This is also evident upon a bare perusal of prayer clause (c), which has been extracted hereinabove.
13. Therefore, insofar as this prayer is concerned, the respondent no.2 is directed to decide the revocation application at the earliest, albeit, as per law.
14. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
15. The Registry will dispatch a copy of the order passed today to respondent nos.[2] to 4.
16. In any event, respondent nos.[2] to 4 are at liberty to approach the Court, in case they are aggrieved by the order passed today.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J NOVEMBER 10, 2022 aj Click here to check corrigendum, if any