{"id":138688,"date":"2006-03-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006"},"modified":"2016-08-25T14:45:27","modified_gmt":"2016-08-25T09:15:27","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Ors vs Ranbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. … on 22 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Ors vs Ranbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. … on 22 March, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Tarun Chatterjee<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2949-2950 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nUnion of India & Ors.         \t\t \t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRanbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. etc.etc.\t      \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/03\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese two appeals are directed against the common
\njudgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.  By the
\nimpugned judgment the High Court disposed of two writ
\npetitions CW No. 3063 of 1995 filed by respondentRanbir
\nSingh Rathaur and CW No. 4082 of 1995 filed by Ashok
\nKumar Rana.  Alongwith these two writ petitions seven Letter
\nPatent Appeals were also disposed of.   These LPAs. are the
\nsubject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal Nos.2951-57 of
\n2001 which were de-linked from the present two appeals by
\norder dated 14.2.2006.  The LPAs. and these writ petitions
\nfiled before the High Court were linked in the sense that in all
\nthese cases  concerned writ petitioners were dismissed from
\nservice by the present appellants. They were all working at the
\nrelevant point of time in 168 Infantry Brigade, deployed in a
\nplace called Samba in the border areas.  By the impugned
\njudgment the High Court held that the proceedings initiated
\nagainst the writ petitioners forming subject matter of the
\npresent appeals were void in law and the orders passed
\nagainst these and the other officers who were appellants in the
\nLPAs were vitiated being without any material and being a
\ncamouflage.  The relevant portion of the High Court’s order
\nreads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t“Accordingly we declare that the proceedings
\ninitiated against the petitioners in the two writ
\npetitions are void in law and the orders passed
\nagainst the other officers, the appellants in
\nL.P.As are vitiated being without any material
\nand being camouflage.  Having dropped the idea
\nnot to conclude Court Martial proceedings
\nknowing fully well that the officers were likely to
\nbe acquitted, without producing relevant record
\nbefore the concerned authority orders of
\ntermination were passed flouting all norms.  The
\nappellants in the LPAs and the petitioners in the
\ntwo writ petitions are entitled to all the
\nconsequential benefits.  We also hereby declare
\nthat the orders passed against the appellants in
\nthe LPAs are void in law and the conviction and
\nsentence by the GOMs against the writ
\npetitioners are void in law.  Consequently, the
\njudgment of the learned Single Judge which are
\nset aside and the writ petitions in those are
\nallowed and the Latent Patent Appeals stand
\nallowed and the two writ petitions also stand
\nallowed.  All the writ petitions stand allowed to
\nthe above extent indicated and other reliefs
\nprayed for cannot be considered by this Court
\nand it is for the law makers to attend to the
\nsame.  There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondents shall grant consequential
\nreliefs to all the officers including all monetary
\nbenefits within a period of four months from
\ntoday.”\n<\/p>\n
Factual background as highlighted by the appellants is
\nessentially as follows:\n<\/p>\n
In February 1971 Gunner Sarwan Dass was cultivated by
\nPakistan Intelligence. In 1972 Capt. Ghalwat & Gnr. Sarwan
\nDass crossed the international border. In 1973 Cap. Ghalwat
\n& Gnr. Sarwan Dass were posted in Babina (MP). In 1974 Gnr.
\nAya Singh was cultivated by Gnr. Sarwan Dass for Pak
\nintelligence. Capt. Nagial was then cultivated by Aya Singh for
\nPak intelligence. In 1975 for the first time the espionage racket
\ncame to be noticed.  Aya Singh and Sarwan Dass were
\narrested. In 1976-1977 pursuant to the investigation 3 more
\nJawans were arrested.  They corroborated the involvement of
\nSarwan Dass. Sarwan Dass and Aya Singh on further
\ninterrogation disclosed the names of Capt. Ghalwat & Capt.
\nNagial. In 1976-77 Capt. Ghalwat & Capt. Nagial were tried by
\nGeneral Court Martial and were convicted.  Ghalwat was
\ncashiered and given 14 years RI.  Nagial was given 7 years RI
\nand was also cashiered. In addition, 12 jawans were tried and
\nthey were given RI of various descriptions and were dismissed
\nfrom services.  Aya Singh and Sarwan Dass were also among
\nthe 12 jawans tried and held guilty. Later in 1978  it was
\ndiscovered that Aya Singh was holding back certain relevant
\ninformation relating to espionage activities under certain
\nalleged threat and pressure. Wife of Aya Singh came to be
\nkilled.  Reeling under the shock of the circumstances, he made
\nfurther disclosures wherein he named Capt. Rathaur and
\nCapt. A.K. Rana, the respondents in these appeals and he
\ndisclosed that he was receiving threats that if he disclosed
\nanything his wife would be killed. Accordingly, in 1978 Capt.
\nRathaur and Capt. A.K. Rana were interrogated.  As a result,
\n42 Army personnel were arrested.  The 42 Army personnel
\nincluded 19 officers, 4 junior commissioned officers (JCOs)
\nand 19 Other Ranks (ORs.)<\/p>\n
Out of the 19 officers, 3 officers were tried by General
\nCourt Martial, two were convicted, namely, Capt. Ranbir Singh
\nRathaur and Capt. A.K. Rana and one was acquitted.  Capt.
\nRanbir Singh Rathaur and Capt. A.K. Rana were sentenced to
\nRI for 14 years each and were cashiered. Against 13 officers,
\ndisciplinary actions were initiated.  However, a decision was
\ntaken not to try them and administrative order under Section
\n18 of Army Act, 1950 (in short the ‘Act’) was passed
\nterminating their services.\n<\/p>\n
Present appeals relate to the 2 officers punished by
\nGeneral Court Martial and the de-linked appeals relate to 7
\nofficers out of 13 officers whose services were terminated
\nunder Section 18 of the Act. The remaining 3 officers were not
\nfound blameworthy and no action was taken against them and
\nthey continued in the Army. Out of 4 JCOs services of (3
\nJCOs) were terminated administratively and against 1 officer
\nno action was taken. Out of 19 others, 6 were tried by General
\nCourt Martial and were convicted and sentenced for various
\ndescriptions of imprisonment.  Services of 9 others were
\nterminated by administrative order and the rest 4 were let off
\nand no action was taken against them.\n<\/p>\n
At this juncture it would be appropriate to take note of
\nprevious litigations.\n<\/p>\n
On 22.10.1980 Criminal Writ Petition No. 90 of 1980 was
\nfiled by Ex Captain Rana. On 4.6.1981 Criminal Writ Petition
\nNo. 90 of 1981 came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of
\nDelhi High Court. It was observed that a number of points
\nwere raised on points of law and jurisdiction. It did not want
\nthese matters to be left undecided, therefore, arguments were
\nheard on these points and were dealt with.\n<\/p>\n
On 19.2.1982, SLP (Crl.) No.2320 of 1981 filed by Capt.
\nA.K. Rana against the order dated 4.6.1981 came to be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
On 17.10.1995 CWP No. 4082 of 1995 was filed by Capt.
\nAK Rana before the Delhi High Court. On 21.12.2000 the
\nimpugned judgment was passed.\n<\/p>\n
On 24.8.1978 Capt. Ranbir Singh Rathaur was arrested
\nand taken into custody on the basis of information collected by
\nthe Military Intelligence that Ranbir Singh Rathaur had been
\nindulging in acts of espionage by passing secret and classified
\nmilitary information to agents of a foreign country. On
\n28.3.1979 Smt. Swaran Rathaur, wife of Capt. Ranbir Singh
\nRathaur filed a Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 32 of the
\nConstitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’) in this
\nCourt being Criminal Writ Petition No. 294\/79, inter alia,
\nseeking the following reliefs:\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tThat Ranbir Singh Rathaur be forthwith
\nproduced before this Hon’ble Court.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tThat the Petitioner in the said writ petition, her
\nlawyers and medical advisors be permitted to
\ninterview the said Capt. Rathaur in conditions
\ncontrolled by this Hon’ble Court and proper
\nmedical care and facilities may be furnished to
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
On 12.4.1979 General Court Martial was convened
\nagainst Capt. Rathaur. On 17.4.1979 two charges were framed
\nagainst Capt. R.S. Rathaur for offences under Section 69 of
\nthe Act, read with Section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act,
\n1923 (in short ‘Secrets Act’).\n<\/p>\n
The Union of India filed a Counter Affidavit in Crl. WP No.
\n294 of 1979, inter alia, pointing out that detenu was being
\ntried by a General Court Martial and that sanction to the
\ndetention was given by the Chief of Army Staff and the
\nGovernment. On 27.4.1979 this Court vide Order dated
\n27.4.1979 dismissed the Writ Petition No. 294\/1979 as
\ninfructuous.  This Court observed that:\n<\/p>\n
“It has also not been disputed that the
\nproceedings of the Court Martial have started
\nand the detenu has been allowed to appoint a
\ncounsel of his own choice who is at the
\nmoment representing the detenu.  In these
\ncircumstances, therefore, the Habeas Corpus
\nPetition had become infructuous and does not
\nmerit any interference by this Court.”\n<\/p>\n
As regards the allegations of torture it was recorded that
\nthe Additional Solicitor General produced before the Court a
\nrecord of the doctor who had examined the detenu thoroughly
\nand found that the complaints made by him were without
\nsubstance.\n<\/p>\n
However, the petitioner was given liberty to make an
\napplication before the Military authorities for examination by
\nthe Principal of the Medical College, Jammu. Such
\nexamination by a civil doctor was not to be taken as casting
\nany reflection or aspersion on the impartiality or incompetence
\nof the doctor of the Military Department.  With these
\nobservations the petition was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
On 2.8.1979 Rathaur was convicted and sentenced to 14
\nyears rigorous imprisonment. In 1981 Rathaur filed a Criminal
\nWrit Petition being Crl.W.P. No. 9 of 1981 in the Delhi High
\nCourt challenging the Court Martial proceedings. On
\n23.3.1982 the High Court vide its order dated 23.3.1982
\ndismissed the petition of Rathaur relying upon its earlier
\ndecision in Criminal Writ No. 90 of 1980 dated 4.6.1981. In
\n1985 SLP (Crl.) 3573\/85 against the Order dated 23.3.1982 of
\nthe High Court in Crl.W.P. No. 9 of 1981 was filed by RS
\nRathaur. In 1985 Rathaur filed a Writ Petition in this Court
\nbeing Criminal Writ Petition No.1577 of 1985 again
\nchallenging the legality of the court martial proceedings, the
\nsentence passed and the confirmation thereof.  It was alleged
\nthat the court martial proceedings and sentence passed were
\narbitrary, illegal and that the procedure followed was in
\nviolation of the Act and the rules made thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
Prayer (B) of the Writ Petition reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
“Issue a writ order or directions in the
\nnature of certiorari calling for the entire
\nproceedings of the General Court Martial and
\nquash the conviction and sentence of the
\nPetitioner and the order of COAS confirming
\nthe said conviction and sentence.”\n<\/p>\n
On 10.2.1986 the Special leave Petition preferred by
\nCapt. Rathaur to this Court being SLP (Crl.) No.3573 of 1985
\nagainst the Order dated 23.3.1982 of the High Court in
\nCrl.W.P.No. 9 of 1981 was dismissed. On 28.4.1986 this Court
\ndismissed the Criminal Writ Petition No. 1577 of 1985.  This
\nCourt observed that the case was not a fit case for calling for
\nthe records or for re-opening the matter and hearing it.  On
\nthe prayer of the Counsel for Rathaur, this Court directed that
\nthe records be preserved for one more year.\n<\/p>\n
On 23.1.1987 the Review Petition  filed by Rathaur in
\nrespect of the order of this Court dated 10.2.1986 in SLP (Crl.)
\nNo.3573 of 1986 and the order dated 28.4.1986 in Criminal
\nWrit Petition No.1577 of 1985 (Review Petition Nos. 493 of
\n1986 and 463 of 1986 respectively) were dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
The order reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
“We have gone through the Review
\nPetitions and connected papers.  We find no
\nmerit in the Review Petitions which are
\naccordingly dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
In May 1989 Rathaur was released from custody. In 1995
\nRathaur again challenged the validity of the Court Martial
\nproceedings which had been conclusively decided by this
\nCourt, by filing a fresh Writ Petition being CWP No. 3063 of
\n1995.  Rathaur, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the same
\nGeneral Court Martial proceedings.  Prayer (1) of Writ Petition
\nis extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
“(1) To issue a Writ of Mandamus and
\nany other appropriate Writ, Order or direction,
\ninter alia commanding the Respondent Nos. 1 <\/span>
\nand 2 in accordance with Section 165 of the
\nArmy Act, 1950 to annul the proceedings of
\nthe General Court Martial  affecting the
\npetitioner as they are malafide, irrational,
\nunjust and illegal and there has been a failure
\nof justice.”\n<\/p>\n
On 17.10.1996 the present appellants filed an affidavit
\ntaking the preliminary objection relating to the maintainability
\nof the Writ Petition in view of the fact that the earlier Writ
\nPetition of Rathaur had already been dismissed by the High
\nCourt on 23.3.1982 and the Special Leave Petition as well as
\nReview Petitions preferred against the same were also
\ndismissed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
It is also pertinent to note that this Court vide order
\ndated 28.4.1986 had dismissed Criminal Writ petition No.1577
\nof 1985 challenging the very same General Court Martial
\nProceedings.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant also submitted that they would file a
\ndetailed counter affidavit on merits after the issue of
\nmaintainability is decided.\n<\/p>\n
On 14.8.1998 the Hon’ble High Court after hearing the
\nmatter at length was pleased to reserve the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
On 22.3.1985 all the writ petitions challenging orders
\nunder Section 18 of the Act were dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
In 1985, one of the writ petitioners Sri N.D. Sharma filed
\nLPA being LPA No. 116 of 1985 against the order of dismissal.
\nOn 19.8.1986 the said LPA came to be disposed of by
\nquashing the 5% cut, however, orders of termination of
\nservices were maintained.\n<\/p>\n
In 1986 Sri N.D. Sharma preferred SLP(C) No. 13195 of
\n1986 against the order dated 19.8.1986. On 27.2.1987 SLP(C)
\nNo. 13195 of 1986 was dismissed. In 1992 Sri N.D. Sharma
\nfiled a fresh Writ Petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 3107 of
\n1992 before Delhi High Court. On 7.9.1992 Writ Petition No.
\n3107 of 1992 was dismissed on the ground of delay. In 1995
\nwrit petition No. 4585 of 1995 was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Similar petition has been dismissed by the Division
\nBench in the case of Subhash Juneja v. Union of India (CW
\n271\/95) as the said petitioner tried to re-open the decision
\nwhich had attained finality. In 1997, Review Petition was filed
\nagainst the order of dismissal being RP No. 5897 of 1997. On
\n7.11.1997 RP No. 5897 was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
In 1987-1994 the balance 7 officers filed LPAs.\n<\/p>\n
It was contended by the present appellants that these
\nLPAs were covered by the order in the case of Sri N.D. Sharma.
\nThe matter came to be referred to a Full Bench of the High
\nCourt to ascertain:\n<\/p>\n
“Whether the order of termination passed by
\nand in the name of the President u\/s 18 r\/w
\nArt. 310 invoking the doctrine of pleasure of
\nthe President can be challenged on the ground
\nthat it is camouflage and as such violative of
\nprinciples of natural justice and the
\nfundamental right guaranteed under Article
\n14?”\n<\/p>\n
On 8.7.1994 the Full Court rendered its judgment in Ex.
\nMaj.N.R. Ajwani & Ors. v. Union of India 55 (1994) SLT 217.  It
\nwas held that:\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tThe concept of camouflage is a facet of judicial
\nreview and the Court would lift the veil in all
\ncases where it appears that the power is used
\nfor collateral purposes under the cloak or garb
\nof innocuous form of an order and determine
\nthe true character of the order under
\nchallenge.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tTherefore, an order under Section 18 of the
\nArmy Act read with Article 310 of the
\nConstitution invoking the doctrine of pleasure
\nof President is subject to judicial reivew to
\nascertain whether the same is exercised
\nlawfully and not vitiated for mala fide or based
\non extraneous grounds and that order can be
\nchallenged on the ground that it is a
\ncamouflage.”\n<\/p>\n
In 1994 the Union of India preferred Special Leave
\nPetition (Civil) Nos.18732-36 against the order of the Full
\nBench of the High Court. On 17.11.1994 Special Leave
\nPetition (Civil) Nos.18732-36 was granted.  Although the
\njudgment of the Full Bench was not disturbed it was held that
\nit is for the person who challenges the order passed u\/s 18 on
\nthe ground of malafide to make out a prima facie case.  It is
\nonly if he discharges the said burden, that the Government is
\ncalled upon to show that the said order is not passed in its
\nmalafide exercise of powers.\n<\/p>\n
On 2.5.1995 the High Court vide its order dated 2.5.1995
\nheld that the issue of maintainability would be decided in the
\nfirst instance.  The High Court in this regard observed:\n<\/p>\n
“We are of the view that first we should decide
\nthe batch whether fresh writ petitions are
\nmaintainable, then the question of going into
\nthe privilege claimed by the respondents will
\nhave to be decided.”\n<\/p>\n
On 8.3.1996 Division Bench of Delhi High Court
\ndismissed similar petition. It was contended by the writ
\npetitioner that the judgment of the Full Bench has given fresh
\ncause of action to them to challenge the order of termination of
\nservice dated 3.3.1980 even if their challenge has been
\nadjudicated upon till the Supreme Court. Earlier decisions
\nwere not based on lack of jurisdiction but it was not found to
\nbe a fit case of interference. It was held that the petitions are
\nbarred by the principles of res judicata and are accordingly
\ndismissed.  This order has been affirmed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
On 6.1.1997 the present appellants filed the affidavit
\nbringing on record this order’s dated 17.11.1994. It was
\nsubmitted that it would be just and proper to decide the prima
\nfacie case, if any, in favour of the appellant\/petitioners.  It is
\nonly then the burden would shift to the respondent to show
\nthat the order had not been passed in malafide exercise of
\npower.\n<\/p>\n
On 14.8.1998 the relevant Original records pertaining to
\nthe case were shown to the Court.  The order does not indicate
\nthat the records were insufficient or more papers were
\nrequired to be produced. It is pertinent to note that all the
\nLPAs and two abovesaid writ petitions were being taken up
\ntogether for hearing by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
On 21.12.2000 the LPAs Nos.4\/87, 43\/87, 139\/87,
\n148\/87, 21\/88, 77\/93 and 86\/1994 were allowed.  It was,
\ninter alia, observed by the High Court as follows:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tThe case of the appellants and the case of the
\nwrit petitioners are interconnected and
\nintertwined and they can be looked as a whole.
\n(2)\tInstead of producing all the relevant records,
\nthe respondent had produced only three flaps.
\n(3)\tPerusal of the Counter Affidavit in all cases
\ngives the impression that the respondent had
\nwithheld material facts.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tRespondents have not placed any material
\njustifying the action.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tRespondent think they are law unto
\nthemselves.\n<\/p>\n
(6)\tRespondents have chosen not to produce the
\nentire record.\n<\/p>\n
(7)\tWe may not have interfered in view of finality
\nreached on an adjudication by this court
\nprovided the records were produced.\n<\/p>\n
(8)\tOn the consideration of all the facts and
\ncircumstances we are of the view that there is
\nno other conclusion possible except to say that
\nthe orders are merely camouflage and have
\nbeen passed for extraneous reasons under the
\ninnocuous form of orders of termination.
\n(9)\tThe appellants in the LPA are entitled to all
\nconsequential benefits.  Orders passed against
\nthe appellants in LPA are void.\n<\/p>\n
On 3.1.2001 the counsel for the present appellant
\nreceived back the files submitted to the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
In these appeals, it has been urged as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tBy application of the principles of res judicata,
\nthe writ petitions were not maintainable.
\n(2)\tThe order dated 17.11.1994 of this Court has
\nbeen overlooked.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tOnus of proof wrongly shifted to the present
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tThe earlier adjudications have not been taken
\ninto account.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tDelay in filing the writ petitions has not been
\nconsidered.\n<\/p>\n
(6)\tRecords were produced before the High Court;
\ncontrary to what has been recorded.\n<\/p>\n
It was pointed out that the High Court lost sight of the
\nfactual background and on mere surmises and conjectures
\nallowed the writ petitions; overlooking the fact that on same
\ngrounds the writ petitions had been earlier filed, were
\ndismissed and even the writ petitions and the SLPs. filed in
\nthis Court were dismissed. On clearly erroneous premises that
\nthere was no material to justify the action, the High Court
\ncame to the conclusion as noted above.  It is submitted that
\nthe High Court proceeded on the basis as if no material were
\nproduced before it and this is contrary to the actual position.
\nIn fact volumes of documents were filed which the High Court
\nunfortunately did not take note of.  This presumably happened
\nbecause the judgment was reserved in 1998 and the impugned
\njudgment was delivered in December, 2000.  The judgment is
\nfull of erroneous conclusions factually, which shows complete
\nnon-application of mind.  An observation has been made by
\nthe High Court that though finality in law is desirable justice
\nis of foremost importance.  It has not been even indicated as to
\nin what manner the earlier proceeding suffered from legality.
\nThe legality of the Court Marshal proceedings which was
\nassailed were challenged earlier and were rejected right up to
\nthis Court.  To substantiate the plea that original documents
\nwere shown and the original files were filed reference has been
\nmade to the receipt. Reference has also been made to the order
\ndated 14th August, 1998, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Synopsis have been placed on record.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Tikky states that by 17.8.1998, photocopy
\nof the relevant record will be made available to
\nCourt.  Originals have been shown to us.\n<\/p>\n
Judgment reserved.”\n<\/p>\n
It was pointed out that the only basis for filing the fresh
\nwrit applications as is evident from the averments made in the
\nwrit petitions is that some press reports had stated about
\nirregularities in holding people guilty of espionage  and the
\norders passed in the cases which formed the subject matter of
\nchallenge in the LPAs.  The subject matter of the writ petitions
\nwhich were under consideration in the LPAs were entirely
\ndifferent and had no connection with the legality of the Court
\nMarshal proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
In response, learned counsel for the respondent
\nsubmitted that there was a great amount of manipulation and
\nobjectionable activities which subsequently came to light and
\non that basis the writ petitions were filed before the High
\nCourt and have been rightly allowed.  In spite of opportunity
\nas noted by the High Court, relevant documents were not
\nproduced.  The stand that documents were filed before the
\nHigh Court is refuted.\n<\/p>\n
On a bare reading of the High Court’s order and the
\naverments in the writ petitions, one thing is crystal clear that
\nthere was no definite allegation against any person who was
\nresponsible for the so called manipulation.  It is also not clear
\nas to who were the parties in the writ petitions filed.  In the
\ngrounds indicated in the writ petitions it was stated that there
\nis no bar or impediment on the High Court reviewing the
\npetitioner’s case as also connected cases to enquire into the
\nvalidity of the acts done against the writ petitioner.  Therefore,
\nit was an accepted position that the writ petitioners wanted
\nreview of the High Court’s order, which is clearly
\nimpermissible. No ground for seeking such review apparently
\nwas made out.  In any event we feel that the High Court’s
\napproach is clearly erroneous.  The present appellants in the
\ncounter affidavit filed had raised a preliminary objection as
\nregards the maintainability of the writ petitions and had
\nrequested the High Court to grant further opportunity if the
\nnecessity so arises to file a detailed counter affidavit after the
\npreliminary objections were decided.  The High Court in fact in
\none of the orders clearly indicated that the preliminary
\nobjections were to be decided first.  But strangely it did not do
\nso.  It reserved the judgment and delivered the final judgment
\nafter about three years.  There is also dispute as to whether
\nthe relevant documents were produced.  What baffles us is
\nthat the High Court records with original documents were
\nshown to it and the Bench wanted the copies to be filed. In the
\nimpugned judgment the High Court proceeded on the basis as
\nif only a few pages of the files were shown.  If that was really
\nthe case, there was no necessity for the High Court to direct
\nthe present appellants to file copies.  If after perusal of the
\ndocuments the High Court felt that these were not sufficient
\nthe same would have been stated. But that does not appear to
\nhave been done.  The High Court also had not discussed as to
\nhow the matters which stood concluded could be reopened in
\nthe manner done.  No sufficient grounds have been even
\nindicated as to why the High Court felt it necessary to do so.
\nTo say that though finality had been achieved justice stood at
\na higher pedestal is not an answer to the basic question as to
\nwhether the High Court was competent to re-open the whole
\nissue which had become concluded.  The persons whom the
\nHigh Court felt were responsible for alleged manipulation or
\npersons behind false implication were not impleaded as
\nparties.  Newspaper reports are not to be considered as
\nevidence.  The authenticity of the newspaper reports was not
\nestablished by the writ-petitioners.  Even otherwise, this could
\nnot have been done in a writ petition, as disputed questions of
\nfact were apparently involved.  The matters which the High
\nCourt found to have been established were really not so.  The
\nconclusions were based on untested materials, and the writ-
\npetitioners had not established them by evidence.  Since the
\nHigh Court has not dealt with the matter in the proper
\nperspective we feel it would be proper for the High Court to re-
\nhear the matter. The High Court shall first decide the
\npreliminary objections raised by the present appellants about
\nthe non-maintainability of the writ petitions.  Normally such a
\ncourse is not to be adopted.  But in view of the peculiar facts
\ninvolved, it would be the appropriate course to be adopted in
\nthe present case.  Therefore, we remit the matter to the High
\nCourt for fresh hearing.  We make it clear that whatever we
\nhave observed should not be treated to be the conclusive
\nfindings on the subject matter of controversy.  The appeals are
\nallowed without any order as to costs.  Since the matter is
\npending since long, we request the High Court to dispose of
\nthe matter as early as practicable, preferably within four
\nmonths from the date of receipt of the judgment.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Ors vs Ranbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. … on 22 March, 2006 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Tarun Chatterjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2949-2950 of 2001 PETITIONER: Union of India & Ors. RESPONDENT: Ranbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. etc.etc. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/03\/2006 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138688","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Ors vs Ranbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. ... on 22 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Ors vs Ranbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. ... on 22 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-25T09:15:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Ranbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. … on 22 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-25T09:15:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4239,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Ranbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. ... on 22 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-25T09:15:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Ranbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. … on 22 March, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India & Ors vs Ranbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. ... on 22 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Ors vs Ranbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. ... on 22 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-25T09:15:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Ors vs Ranbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. … on 22 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-25T09:15:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006"},"wordCount":4239,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006","name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Ranbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. ... on 22 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-25T09:15:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-ranbir-singh-rathaur-ors-on-22-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Ranbir Singh Rathaur & Ors. … on 22 March, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138688","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138688"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138688\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}