Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9309 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar And 17 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankit Saran Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Sri Ankit Saran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The controversy arising in this petition is said to be duly covered by order dated 7.5.2019 passed in WRIT - A No. - 27868 of 2016 (Arun Maan And 9 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others), which is quoted below:-
"Heard Sri Kanhaiya Singhal and Sri Ankit Saran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The pleadings exchanged between the parties have also been perused.
The petitioners on the basis of driving licenses issued by the Regional Transport Office, Agra had taken job in the Fire Department of the Delhi Fire Service.
The impugned letter/order order dated 15.11.2010 issued by the Licensing Officer/Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration), Agra states that as on verification it has been found that there is no endorsement of deposit of license fee and as there is no order of the competent authority for issuing driving licenses to them, these licenses shall be deemed to be fake. In recording the above finding much weightage has been given to the fact that the Clerk concerned Sitaram Varma is alleged to have manipulated the documents and in that connection he has been sent to jail.
In challenging the aforesaid letter/order dated 15.11.2010, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the licenses issued to the petitioners are not fake and that some of them have been renewed by the department and in respect of some of them on verification certificates were issued that they have been validly issued from the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Agra.
The basic submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that before furnishing the above information by the impugned letter/order dated 15.11.2010 the petitioners were not given any notice or opportunity of hearing. The have made averments to this effect in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. In the counter affidavit there is no denial to the averments made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, except for stating that the driving licenses issued to the petitioners were not issued by the licensing authority.
The aforesaid facts clearly reveal that the Licensing Officer/Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration), Agra in issuing the letter/order dated 15.11.2010 to the Director, Delhi Fire Service has not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners were not even confronted with the material on the basis of which the licenses have been held to be fake for the reasons recorded in the letter. Had an opportunity of hearing been given to the petitioners they could have established that their licenses are valid and they have been renewed from time to time and on verification of validity of the licenses have been accepted.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration following the principles of natural justice before holding the licenses of the petitioners to be fake in any manner.
Accordingly, we direct the Licensing Officer/Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration), Agra to revisit the matter and thereafter submit a fresh report to the Director, Delhi Fire Service in respect of driving licenses held by the petitioners after giving opportunity of hearing to them. This may be done within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. On submission of fresh report the earlier report/letter dated 15.11.2010 would be rendered non-est.
The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid direction."
In view of the above decision, this writ petition is also disposed of on the same terms and conditions as the above writ petition.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Pramod Tripathi