Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15920/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15920 of
2010
=========================================================
VIKRAMSINGH
KISHORESINGH RATHORE - Petitioner(s)
Versus
HON'BLE
MR JUSTICE D K TRIVEDI COMMISSION & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BM GUPTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS MAITHILI
MEHTA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 16/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Petitioner is a
witness, whose examination is going on before the Hon’ble Mr. Justice
D.K. Trivedi Commission of Inquiry, which is inquiring into the facts
and circumstances, leading to the death of two school boys in Asharam
Ashram, situated in the outskirts of city of Ahmedabad.
2. Petitioner has
challenged the orders dated 20.09.2010 and 21.09.2010, passed by the
Hon’ble Chairman of the Inquiry Commission, by which his application
Exhibit Nos. 1962, 2031, 2038 and 2039 were rejected.
3. The case of the
petitioner is that he has carried out a sting operation against some
of the persons, who according to the petitioner, have been carrying
on a triad against Asharam Bapu to malign and defame him. He fears
for his safety, at the hands of some of these persons. It is his
case that he was also attacked, previously, for which he has filed a
complaint before the police. He, therefore, requested to the
Commission that his evidence be recorded at Delhi, through a
Commissioner and he objected to six persons, to whom the
communication was made by the Commission for remaining present,
during further recording of evidence of the petitioner. Essentially,
these requests came to be turned down by the impugned orders.
4. Counsel for the
petitioner drew my attention to various averments made in the
petition as well as emerging from the documents on record, to contend
that there is a serious threat to the safety of the petitioner, on
account of his activities, particularly, by carrying on sting
operation against the above-mentioned persons and others, of the said
group. He drew my attention to the observations of the Hon’ble
Commissioner in the order dated 27.06.2010, which read as follows:
” In view of the
directions given earlier, Registry, vide letter dated 22.06.2010, had
informed six persons viz. M/s. Raju Chandak, Amrut Prajapati(Vaidya),
Mahendra Chawala, Shekar Girdharilal, Ms. Veena Chauhan and Ms.
Falguni Patel (Editor-Sandesh) that, the witness MR. Rathore is being
examined on behalf of Sant Shri Asaramji Ashram and his evidence has
remained partially recorded on 18.06.2010 and that further evidence
is to be recorded on 27.06.2010 and if so desire, they may remain
present either personally or through authorized representative and
may clarify the averments concerning them. Accordingly, M/s. Mahdera
Chawala, Surendra Chauhan (GM, Admn.-Sandesh) and Ms. Veena Chauhan
remained present and this order is passed in their presence.”
5. Insofar as the
concern of the petitioner for his safety is concerned, in order to
ensure that no untoward incident takes place, without going into the
allegations made in the petition, the State authorities are DIRECTED
to provide POLICE PROTECTION to the petitioner, while
he is in AHMEDABAD for giving his EVIDENCE
before the Commission, if he or his authorized agent MAKES
a formal APPLICATION, in this regard, before the
Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad.
6. With respect to the
observations of the Commission noted in the order dated 27.06.2010, I
do not see how the petitioner is harmed or prejudiced by mere
presence of the six persons to whom an intimation of recording of
evidence of the petitioner has been sent by the Commission.
7. The
learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that in the
said order the Commission has permitted those persons to
cross-examine the petitioner with respect to averments concerning
them. I am unable to read the order of the Commission to mean that
such persons are permitted to cross-examine the present petitioner.
However, if such a stage arrives, I LEAVE it to the
petitioner to OBJECT to the same, which objection, I am
sure, the Commission shall EXAMINE, in accordance with
law.
With
the above observations and directions, this petition is DISPOSED
of.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
Umesh/
Top