The Government Of India An Etc Etc The Government Of India And Ors. Etc Etc Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways Secretary vs. Kirti Mishra Advocate And Anr Etc Etc

LISTING ON 12.07.2016 COURT NO. 1 ITEM NO. 41

SEC.IVA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL(CIVIL)NO. 1864 OF 2016 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3 ( Application for recall of orders dated 16.1.2015) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 4 (Application for permission to file Additional Documents) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 5 (Application for directions) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 6 (Application for permission to file additional documents)

SM AUTO ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR ...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

AUTO DRIVERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION(REGD) & ORS ... RESPONDENTS

OFFICE REPORT

The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 05.04.2016 with an office report dated 19.01.2016, when he was pleased to pass the following order :

''At the hearing today Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General appearing for Government of India, pointed out certain discrepancies in the report submitted by Tyagi Committee, to which we had made a reference in our Order dated 22 nd February, 2016.

Mr. Rohatgi pointed out that the petitioneruto Drivers Welfare Association and Sheikh Ahmed in T.C.(C)No.72 of 2015 have filed a copy of the Panel Report on "Quadricyle, Rules & Regulations" by Mr. Dinesh Tyagi, DirectorICAT, to the Chairman, CMVRTSC, MoRT&H, Government of

India, New Delhi, and the Chairman, AISC, ARAI, Pune, which appears at pages 670 to 719 of the Convenience VolumeIII of the paper book. It is submitted by Mr. Rohatgi that according to the "Table of Contents" appearing at page 678 of the said volume, the final recommendations of the Committee captioned "9.0" are contained at pages 22 to 37 of the said Report while AnnexureA to the MoM for 1st Panel Meeting captioned "10.0" is at pages 38 to 41. This, according to Mr. Rohatgi, implies that the final recommendations of the Committee at page 37 of the Report are corresponding to running page 714 of the Convenience Volume, mentioned above. Surprisingly however the document actually produced has instead of one, two pages both of which are numbered 38, one appearing at running page no.715 and the other at running page no.716. An impression is, therefore, created as though the recommendations of the Committee do not conclude at page no.37 (running page no.714) but go on to page no.38 (running page no.715). The additional page numbered 38 (running page 715) of the convenience volume is, according to Mr. Rohatgi, actually not a part of the original Report and is a clear fabrication to somehow buttress the case set up by the petitioners in the said transferred case for otherwise there is no reason why the "Table of Contents" would not have mentioned that the recommendations spread over to page 38 (running page 715 of the convenience volume) instead of limiting the same to page 37 only (corresponding to running page 714 ). Mr. Rohatgi submits that the petitioners have attempted to not only fabricate the documents but also use the same in the judicial proceedings for which appropriate action needs to be taken against the persons responsible. He submits that the respondentU.O.I. would file an attested true copy of the Tyagi Committee Report which does not have the second page 38 of the Report (corresponding to running page 715 of the compilation). He submits that page 715 is an interpolation and an insertion evident not only from the "Table of Contents" but also the manner in which the page has been placed in the compilation.

Mr. Rohatgi further points out that

respondents no.1 and 2Auto Drivers Welfare Association and Sheikh Ahmed in SLP(C) NO.1864 of 2015, who happen to be the petitioners in T.C. (C)No.72 of 2015, have filed along with I.A.No.4 of 2015 a report, allegedly submitted but but Ambuj Sharma at pages 18 to 31. Another copy of the very same report has been filed by respondents no.1 and 2 in I.A.NO.6 of 2015 in SLP(C)No.1864 of 2015 at pages 441 to 455 of Volume III. He submits that from a bare comparison of the two reports filed by the very same party it is evident that the same are at variance with each other. This, according to Mr. Rohatgi, is yet another attempt by the very same party to use fabricated documents in judicial proceedings before this Court. He submits that the respondentU.O.I. shall file an attested true copy of Ambuj Sharma Report also to enable this Court to compare to the copies already filed by respondents no.1 and 2, mentioned above.

Before we issue any direction in the matter on the basis of the submission made at the Bar, we direct respondents no.1 and 2 in SLP(C)No.1864 of 2015 who also happen to be the petitioners in T.C.(C)No.72 of 2015 to file an affidavit indicating the following: (1) Whether copies of the reports prepared by Tyagi Committee and referred to in the body of this Order have been filed by the said respondents in the present proceedings.

(2) If the same have been filed by the respondents, what is the source from which the said documents were obtained.

(3) In case there is a discrepancy in the contents of the reports relied upon by the said respondents, what is the explanation for the said discrepancies.

(4) In case the explanation is found to be unacceptable, why should appropriate proceedings for perjury be not initiated against the party who have relied upon such false and fabricated documents.

This shall also apply equally to the reports submitted by Ambuj Sharma to the Government, copies whereof have been filed by the Auto Drivers Welfare Association and Sheikh Ahmedrespondents no.1 and 2 in SLP(C)No.1864 of 2015 along with I.As. No.4 and 6, mentioned in the body of this Order. The discrepancies in the two copies filed by the said parties shall also be explained on the same line as indicated above.

Needful shall be done within six week from today.

Mr. Rohatgi shall file attested true copies submitted by Dinesh Tyagi and Ambuj Sharma within one week from today.

The Registrar (Judicial) shall also examine the copies of the two reports to which we have made reference hereinabove and submit a report as to whether the same have been filed by the Auto Drivers Welfare Association and others, the person who has sworn affidavit in support of the application under which the said reports have been filed as also the nature and the extent of variance/discrepancy between the two documents. Needful shall be done by the Registrar (Judicial) before the next date of hearing.

Post after six weeks.''

It is submitted that Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Advocate has on 16.05.2016 filed affidavit with annexure A, A1 to A5 and B, B1 to B2 (involume) on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and the same has been included in the paper books.

It is further submitted that as per Court's Order dated 05.04.2016 the Ld. Registrar (JI) has prepared the report in question in T.C. No. 72/2015.

Service of show cause notice is complete.

The matter above mentioned is, therefore, listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Report.

Dated this the 11th day of July, 2016.

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

COPY TO : Mr. E. C. Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rachana Gupta, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. Mr. D. S. Mahra, Adv.