Linkwell Telesystems Pvt. Ltd vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
First Hearing
Listed On:
23 Jan 2023
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).1101/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-09-2022 in WP No. 10989/2022 passed by the High Court Of M.P Principal Seat At Jabalpur)
LINKWELL TELESYSTEMS PVT. LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.9280/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 23-01-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
| For Petitioner(s) | Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. |
|---|---|
| Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. | |
| Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. | |
| Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR | |
| Mr. Gursimar Singh, Adv. | |
| Mr. Hitesh Singh, Adv. | |
| Mr. Sivagnanam Karthikeyan, Adv. | |
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, so far as the principal reliefs claimed in the writ petition before the High Court, as against the termination letter dated 01.02.2022, are concerned, we are not inclined to interfere, particularly after having taken note of the fact that all the relevant aspects were not forthrightly and candidly stated by the petitioner while filling-up the declaration, as noticed by the High Court in Digitally signed by Harshita Uppal Date: 2023.01.24 13:56:31 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified
1
paragraph 12 of the order impugned. Therefore, the relief sought to be claimed by the petitioner against the termination letter dated 01.02.2022 has rightly been rejected and the petition seeking to challenge that part of the order impugned is required to be, and is, rejected.
However, we have also considered the other submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as regards his grievance concerning the observations occurring in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the order impugned, leading to the finding by the High Court that a fraudulent practice has been committed by the petitioner. It is submitted that even if there was a fault on the part of the petitioner in not making complete disclosure in his declaration, there had not been any fraudulent intent when the petitioner understood the requirement being only of making declaration that he had not been black-listed by any Government Entity.
Therefore, only as regards the observations occurring in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the order impugned, let notice be issued to the respondents to show cause, as to why, this petition be not entertained and the observations occurring therein be not annulled/modified.
(GAGANDEEP SINGH CHADHA) (RANJANA SHAILEY) (SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT) COURT MASTER (NSH)
2