SANJEEV KUMAR DANDONA Vs. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner to seek quashing of the order of charge dated 04.09.2008 and the charge framing order dated 17.10.2008 passed by Sh. V.K. Maheshwari, Special Judge, Delhi in C.C. No. 54/2002 at RC7(A)/2000/DLI/CBI/ACB/ND. The petitioner is one of the co accused and is allegedly involved in the issuance of more than one TSR permit against one old condemned TSR in violation of the prescribed rules. The background relevant for present case may first be noted.

(2.) THE Supreme Court, in Writ petition No. 13029/1985 (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India) vide order dated 16.12.1997 had directed that no fresh permit would be granted in respect of auto rickshaw (TSR), except by way of replacement of an existing working TSR with a new one. This was done with a view to reduce pollution levels in Delhi. Trading in permits was also not allowed by the Supreme Court. As a result of the aforesaid direction, Secretary (STA) issued a detailed order dated 02.01.1998 to the concerned officials including Motor Licensing Officer (AR), Burari prescribing procedures for maintenance of accounts of cancellation/registration of TSRs, monthly statement of TSR registrations cancelled or renewed, and format for "Certificate of Cancellation of Registration". Consequently, the Motor Licensing Officer (MLO), Burari issued a detailed order prescribing the procedure to be adopted for replacement of old TSRs with new ones.

(3.) ON certain information received by officials of National Information Centre (for short NIC), investigation was carried out which revealed that 1157 auto rickshaws had multiple registration as on 17.06.1999 i.e. it was a case where two or more than two new TSRs were given permit against one old TSR permit. A vigilance team of the transport authority headed by their Deputy Director (Vig.) visited the Burari Transport Authority and were able to locate 150 such files just by physical search. It was also found that the files were grossly incomplete and were not containing the necessary documents.