W.P.(C)/11732/2018 of ARVIND SHAH Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Signature Not Verified

$~184 & 185

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 12.12.2024

+ W.P.(C) 11732/2018, CM APPL. 45359/2018

ARVIND SHAH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Batra, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms. Priya Singh, Mr. Nishant Sharma and Mr. Nipun Jain, Advocates for R-1/UOI Priya Singh, Mr. Nishant Sharma and Mr. Nipun Jain, Advocates for R-1/UOI

+ W.P.(C) 11757/2018, CM APPL. 45537/2018

DR BERND AUGUSTIN .....Petitioner

Through: Appearance not given

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

.....Respondents

Through:

Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms. Priya Singh, Mr. Nishant Sharma and Mr. Nipun Jain, Advocates for UOI

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJUTARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

1. The present Petitions have been filed inter alia seeking the following prayer:

W.P.(C) 11732/2018 Page 1 of 4

Signature Not Verified

“i. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned Examination report dated 7.12.2016 issued by the Respondent No. 2;”

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that the Counter Affidavit has been filed by the Respondents in W.P.(C) 11757/2018. He seeks and is granted liberty to adopt the same Counter Affidavit in W.P(C) 11732/2018.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Impugned Examination Report dated 07.12.2016 [hereinafter referred to as “Report’] issued by the Respondent No. 2 is bereft of any details. The relevant portion of the Report is reproduced below:

W.P.(C) 11732/2018 Page 2 of 4

Signature Not Verified

3.1 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner further submits

that he limits the prayer in the present Petition to the Respondent No. 2 providing the reasons for the Report filed.

4. This Court has examined the Report. The Report other than giving description of the objects and materials, only gives one/two word decision i.e., “Antiquity”/“Non-Antiquity’. It does not give any reason whatsoever for the statutory authority reaching such conclusion.

5. In view of the above, the Petition is allowed. The Respondent is

directed to provide to the Petitioner, the reasons for the decision which was taken on 07.12.2016 within period of eight weeks. This communication shall be issued to the Petitioner by acknowledged registered post.

6. The Respondent No.2 is also at liberty to undertake fresh examination of the articles seized and give its fresh report within the same period as well.

W.P.(C) 11732/2018 Page 3 of 4

Signature Not Verified

7. In the meantime, while the directions of this Court are being complied with, no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioner in pursuance of the Report.

8. This Order is being passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties. In the event, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the reasons/fresh report filed by Respondent No.2, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with the law.

9. The Petitions are disposed of in the aforegoing terms. Pending Applications stand closed.

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

DECEMBER 12, 2024g.joshi

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

W.P.(C) 11732/2018 Page 4 of 4