Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 991 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
On the last foray, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was disposed of with the following observations:
“The impugned communication apprises the petitioner of the rejection of his candidature, since during the course of character verification it came to light that he stood named in Case Crime No. 287 of 2016. According to the petitioner, he was neither arrested in connection with this crime nor did he have any knowledge or notice of the registration of this case and, therefore, it could not be said that he had misrepresented or suppressed any material facts. Additionally it is his submission that the offences themselves even if taken on their face value, are evidence only of trivial offences and, therefore, the decision taken by the respondents would merit interference.
Undisputedly in situations like this, it is the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2016 (8) SCC 471 which would apply.
Learned Standing Counsel states that in case the petitioner submits a representation within a period of two weeks from today before the fifth respondent, the same shall be duly considered and disposed of in accordance with law and bearing in mind the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh.
Accordingly and in light of the statement so made and without going into the merit or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner, this petition is disposed of.”
The stand taken by the petitioner consistently had been that he had no knowledge or notice of the criminal proceedings and that he had not been summoned at any stage by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation of the crime in question. It is also contended in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the present writ petition that the petitioner was never arrested in connection with the crime in question.
The Court however, notes that while passing the order impugned, the respondents have merely proceeded on the basis that the petitioner knowingly did not disclose the pendency of the criminal case in question. It is in this context that the learned counsel contends that the issue of misrepresentation or concealment can only arise when a fact is known or where knowledge thereof is at least attributable to the petitioner. Presently the impugned order ex facie does not deal with this aspect of the matter at all.
Faced with this situation, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending on the board of this Court and that the ends of justice would merit directions being issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh to reevaluate the candidature of the petitioner in light of what has been observed above.
Accordingly and with the consent of parties, this petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the fourth respondent to re-evaluate the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with law and bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove with expedition and preferably within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The order impugned herein shall abide by the fresh decision which the said respondent shall now take.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 LA/-