IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2011

(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)
(Arising out of the Final Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2010 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal 1671 of 2010)

IN THE MATTER OF:

SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA... …PETITIONER

VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.... …
RESPONDENTS

WITH

I.A.. NO 2011
(AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN
REFILING)

PAPER BOOK
(KINDLY SEE INSIDE FOR INDEX)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: T. ANIL KUMAR

 INDEX

SL PARTICULARS PAGES

1. Office Report on Limitation -

1A. Listing Proforma -
1B. Check List -
2. Synopsis & List of Dates
3. Impugned Final Judgment and Order dated -
02.11.2010 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal 1671
of 2010
4. Special Leave Petition with Affidavit along -
with prayer for interim relief
5. Annexure P-1 -
True Copy of Certificate of Registration
6. Annexure P-2 -
True Copy of Letter of Appointment dated
19.06.1993
7. Annexure P-3 -
True Copy of Order of Confirmation
08.09.1994
8. Annexure P-4 -
2 True Copy of Letter of Appointment dated
31.03.2003
9. Annexure P-5 -
True Copy of Advertisement in the
newspaper dated 04.05.2003
10. Annexure P-6 -
True Copy of the members of the Board of
Officers assembled for the interview of the
candidates dated 20.06.2003
11. Annexure P-7 -
True Copy of Merit List dated 20.06.2003
12. Annexure P-8 -
True Copy of the Note-Sheet No.17 dated
02.08.2003
13. Annexure P-9 -
True Copy of the Advertisement dated
09.01.2004
14. Annexure P-10 -
True Copy of the Call-Letter dated
17.02.2004
 SL PARTICULARS PAGES

15. Annexure P-11 -

True Copy of Selection List dated
01.03.2004
16. Annexure P-12 -
True Copy of Order dated 05.07.2006
17. Annexure P-13 -
True Copy of Reply to show-cause notice dated
20.07.2006
18. Annexure P-14 -
True Copy of Order dated 11.09.2006
19. Annexure P-15 -
True Copy of Counter Affidavit on behalf of
Respondents No.2 to 5 dated 21.10.2009
20. Annexure P-16 -
True Copy of Rejoinder Affidavit on behalf of
Petitioner dated 07.02.2010
21. Annexure P-17
True Copy of the order and judgment dated -
12.07.2010 in the Special Appeal No. 1074 of
2010
22. Annexure P-18 -
True Copy of Order dismissing the Writ Petition
dated 16.09.2010.
3
23. Annexure P-19 -
True Copy of Order terminating the Petitioner’s
service dated 17.09.2010
24. Annexure P-20 -
True Copy of Application dated 04.10.2010, for
stay of the Order dated 16.09.2010
25. Annexure P-21 -
True Copy of Special Appeal No. 1671 of 2010
dated 07.10.2010
26. Annexure P-22 -
True Copy of Order of this Hon’ble Court in Dileep
Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors, in
SLP/7641/2011 dated 01.04.2011
27. Application of the Petitioner for Condonation of -
Delay in Refiling.
 SYNOPSIS

This instant Petition arises out of a curious set of circumstances wherein

two coordinate benches of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad took

conflicting views as to whether a writ petition would lie against the Air

Force School, Bamrauli, such that this Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue

notice in the matter of Dileep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors, in

SLP/7641/2011 vide order dated 01 April 2011, recording:

Issue Notice returnable in four weeks in view of the fact there is a

conflict between the impugned judgment and the previous judgment

of another Division Bench of the same court reported in 2006 (7)

ADJ 322 [Sanjai Kumar Sharma vs. Central Board of Secondary

Education & Others.]

The Petitioner herein is the very same Sanjay Kumar Sharma, whose writ

petition was held maintainable in the abovementioned judgment and which

4

was remanded to be heard on merits. However while the said petition was

pending before the Single Judge, the coordinate division bench took a

conflicting view in Dileep Kumar Pandey’s case. Despite the fact that in

Sanjay Kumar Sharma’s case the issue of maintainability had already

been decided once by a Division Bench, the Learned Single Judge instead

chose to rely on the coordinate bench’s judgment and dismissed the Writ

Petition on the ground of maintainability. The special leave petition against

the same was also dismissed inter alia in view of the judgment in Dileep

Kumar Pandey’s case.

This special leave petition along with the pending special leave petition in

Dileep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors, SLP/7641/2011 raise an

important question of law as to whether the Air Force Schools set up by

 the various Units of the Indian Air Force constitute an authority for the

purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and whether the act of

the Air Force of creating a veil in the form of the Indian Air Force

Educational and Cultural Society to control the functioning of the Air Force

Schools results in excluding them from the definition of State and whether

this has the consequence of affecting the fundamental rights and future of

numerous employees and students across the country.

The Petitioner submits that on an appreciation of the relevant material

there can be no manner of doubt that the Air Force School, Bamrauli and

the Indian Air Force Cultural & Educational Society have been

established, financed and controlled by the Central Government through

the Air Force and are authorities for the purpose of Article 12 of the

Constitution.

The Respondents have mischievously claimed that the Air Force School,
5
Bamrauli is run by the Indian Air Force Cultural & Educational Society and

its by-laws, registered in 1980 under the Societies Registration Act and

has no Governmental Control and uses no Governmental Finance. While

doing so the Respondents have misstated the historical background of the

school evidenced by the following documents:

(1) The fact that the said School was established in 1966 and not 1980

and was registered with the society as recently as 2003 almost 40

years after it was established, and that the registration with the

society did not change its basic nature.

(2) The Deed pertaining to the 1980 registration of the said Society

which establishes pervasive State Control over the said society;

 (3) The 1985 CBSE Affiliation Application submitted after the Society

had been established, wherein the Air Force School, Bamrauli was

categorically stated to be a Defence Establishment run and fully

financed by the Air Force, Bamrauli and that it was not run by a

trust or a foundation;

(4) That in 2009, the Air Force appointed the first ever Director General

(Administration) at Air Head Quarters, Vayu Bhavan, New Delhi to

specifically look after inter alia Air Force Schools.

(5) That in 2009 the Directorate of Education AIR HQ issued AIR

HQ/19275/2/1/ED setting the revision of pay scales and fee

structure: AF Schools and guidelines on functioning of schools.

(6) That in 2010 the Indian Air Force Head Quarters Training

Command “Hand Book Under RTI Act, 2005 issued with the

objective / purpose making concerned personnel aware of the role

of HQ TC, IAF clearly states that the Command Education Officer is

responsible to the SOA for the Management of Schools and KVs.

6
(7) The complete Education Code framed by the Society that admits

the society itself has been set up by the Air Force and further

establishes the pervasive control of the Directorate of Education,

Air Force Head Quarters in the day to day running, and finances of

all schools;

The Petitioner after a decade of dedicated and spotless service to the Air

Force School Bamrauli as a commerce teacher, was promoted to the post

of Officiating Principal, and thereafter selected for permanent appointment

by way of a thorough selection process. The Respondent No.6 Shalini

Kaul, the sister of a serving Air Vice-Marshal wanted the post for herself,

and has systematically ensured that the Petitioner has suffered all forms

of harassment and coercion, such that not only was his appointment
 reversed and herself appointed Principal, but that thereafter numerous

false and baseless complaints have been initiated against him. The

Petitioner who had been denied due process of natural justice was

compelled to move the Hon’ble Courts.

Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment that dismissed the proceedings on

the ground of maintainability, contrary to a coordinate bench’s judgment in

the very same proceedings, the Petitioner prefers this instant Special

Leave Petition.

LIST OF DATES

Date Event

1966 The Air Force Schools are established, financed and controlled by
7
the Central Government through the Indian Air Force with the

object of imparting education to the children of the officers and of

the employees of Indian Air Force. The Air Force Schools comes

within the meaning of the word ‘State’ under Article 12 of the

Constitution of India.

The Air Force School Bamrauli was established by the Air Force

Bamrauli, Ministry of Defence to provide education up to the

primary school level. The School was subsequently upgraded to

class X in the year 1987. It was further upgraded to Class XII in

1993 with science, commerce and humanities. It is a co-

educational school and follows the CBSE syllabus. The School

 has approximately 1500 students on its rolls.

Until 2003, to the knowledge of the Petitioner, the School has

been both controlled and operated by the Air Force and from 2003

till date it has been controlled by the Air Force and run through the

Air Force Cultural & Educational Society.

25.09.1980 The Air Force Headquarters, Ministry of Defence, established the

Air Force Educational & Cultural Society which is registered under

the Societies Registration Act vide Registration No.11214 to give

effect to the Air Forces directions in respect of all Air Force

Schools set up at various units over India. A true copy of the

Certificate of Registration is attached hereto and marked

“ANNEXURE P-1” (Pages ……….. to ……….)

It is pertinent to note that though the Air Force School, Bamrauli

8 was established 14 years prior in 1966 and was not registered

with this Society until 2003. Furthermore the Petitioner does not

have a copy of the constituent documents of the Society, and the

Respondents have mischievously failed to file the same before the

Hon’ble Court.. However on a reading of the Education Code

framed by the Society most recently in 2005, it is clear that the

Society operates the schools which have been established and

are controlled by the Air Force.

23.08.1985 The Air Force School, Bamrauli applied for CBSE affiliation and in

the application it was categorically stated that the said school is a

Defence Establishment run and fully financed by the Air Force,

Bamrauli and that it is not run by a trust or a foundation.

 Furthermore Air Force Control can be seen from the fact that for

every school run by the Society, the Air Force has specified in the

Society’s Education Code that the responsibility for processing

affiliation to the CBSE lies with the Air Force itself and not with

either the School or the Society.

28.04.1993 The Indian Air Force issues Proceedings of Board of Officers in

respect of Revision of Pay Scales of teaching and non-teaching

staff of AF School and recommended increase in rates of tuition

fees. This establishes that the Air Force School is following

procedures prescribed by the Air Force in administering the school

and is not following procedures established under the Societies

Registration Act or by the Society.

19.06.1993 Petitioner was appointed as Post-Graduate Teacher Commerce in

the School via appointment letter issued by Air Commodore H.

9
S.Chahal. A true copy of the Letter of Appointment dated

19.06.1993 is attached hereto and marked “ANNEXURE P-2”

(Pages ……….. to ……….)

08.09.1994 Petitioner was confirmed as Post-Graduate Teacher Commerce in

the School by an Order of confirmation issued by Flying

Officer/Wing Commander U. Thakur. A true copy of Order of

Confirmation dated 08.09.1994 is attached hereto and marked

“ANNEXURE P-3” (Pages ……….. to ……….)

29.05.1998 Air Force Order 67, issued by Chief of the Air Force pertaining to

“Education in the Indian Air Force”. From this order it can be seen

that the Air Force considers these schools to be part of the Air
 Force, which inter alia recognizes that the Ministry of Defence

runs certain Children’s Schools which “are now more or less a part

of the permanent fixtures of a station’s establishment” and seeks

to regulate them (Para 13 & 22).

31.03.2003 The Petitioner was appointed as the officiating Principal, Air Force

School, Bamrauli by way a letter of appointment issued by Wing

Commander Ajay Kumar, the Officer-in-charge, Air Force School,

Bamrauli, Allahabad. A true copy of the Letter of Appointment

dated 31.03.2003 is attached hereto and marked “ANNEXURE P-

4” (Pages ……….. to ……….)

04.05.2003 Advertisement was made for the appointment of regular Principal

of the School in Times of India and Northern Indian Patrika, under

the authority of Wing Commander P. K.Nigam, Officer-in-charge

Air Force, Bamrauli. A true copy of the advertisement made in the

newspaper is attached hereto and marked “ANNEXURE P-5”

10
(Pages ……….. to ……….)

20.06.2003 Board of Officers/Selection Committee, consisting of Group

Captain D. N.Vajpayee as the Presiding Officer, Wing

Commander, S. N. Sinha; Wing Commander M. A.Afaraz; Wing

Commander P. K.Nigam and Sq. Leader Anthony Raj and N.

K.Roy, Principal Kendriya Vidyalaya as the expert member,

assembled for the selection of the Principal of the Air Force

School, Bamrauli. A true copy of the members of the Board of

Officers assembled for the interview of the candidates on

20.06.2003 is attached hereto and marked “ANNEXURE P-6”

(Pages ……….. to ……….)

 20.06.2003 The Petitioner and the Respondent No.6 appeared as candidates

in a widely advertised selection process for post of Principal

before the Board of Officers/Selection Committee.

20.06.2003 The Petitioner stood first in the merit list and was was selected for

the post of Principal The Petitioner was asked by the officer-in-

charge of the school to continue as Principal. But no appointment

letter was issued. A true copy of the Merit List dated 20.06.2003 is

attached hereto and marked “ANNEXURE P-7” (Pages ………..

to ……….)

02.08.2003 Note Sheet No.17 was entered in file no.712-4-ed by the Officer-

in-charge of the Air Force School, Bamrauli, Wing Commander P.

K.Nigam to the effect that “The Commerce PGT was officiating as

Principal has been selected for the post of Principal, Business

studies teacher Classes will be about 30.” However no official

appointment letter was issued to the Petitioner on account of the

11
undue influence of Respondent No.6 Shalini Kaul, who wanted the

post of principal herself. A true copy of the note-sheet No.17 is

attached hereto and marked “ANNEXURE P-8” (Pages ………..

to ……….)

14.11.2003 37 years after the Air Force School, Bamrauli was established, it

was registered with the IAF Educational & Cultural Society for the

very first time. It is pertinent to note that upon being registered

with the IAF Educational & Cultural Society, the School was now

subject to Education Code framed thereunder. However as the

said Society has been established by the Directorate of Education,

 Air Force HQ which exerts overriding control over the Society, the

School continued to remain under the direct control of the Air

Force under the Ministry of Defence. It is respectfully submitted

that mere registration of the School with the Society is not

sufficient to change its basic character to remove it from the ambit

of Article 12 and escape it from Article 226 Writ Jurisdiction.

09.01.2004 Though the Petitioner had been selected for the post of principal,

a second advertisement was made for the Post in the school

Bamrauli at the behest of the Respondent No.6 who was

exercising back-door influence. A true copy of the advertisement

dated 09.01.2004 is attached hereto and marked “ANNEXURE P-

9” (Pages ……….. to ……….)

17.02.2004 The Petitioner received a call-letter dated 17.02.2004, regarding

the second interview for the post of Principal in the school

Bamrauli, but could not attend the same on account of threats

12
from the Respondent No.6. A true copy of the call-letter dated

17.02.2004 is attached hereto and marked “ANNEXURE P-10”

(Pages ……….. to ……….)

01.03.2004 The Board of Officers assembled for the selection of the Principal

and this time Smt. Shalini Kaul was placed at third place by the

Board of Officers and one Neerja Singh was placed at first place

and D.N. Thomas at second place. Miss Neerja Singh and D.N.

Thomas being outsiders were not allowed to join the post and

threatened away. A true copy of the selection list dated

01.03.2004 is attached hereto and marked “ANNEXURE P-11”

(Pages ……….. to ……….)

 20.06.2004 The Petitioner was still officiating as Principal. But was asked by

the Officer-in-Charge of the School not to sit in office of the

Principal and to stop working as the Principal

20.06.2004 The Respondent No.6, forced her way in and started acting as if

she was the Principal of the School without taking over the charge

from the officiating Principal.

08.11.2004 The second round of victimization of the Petitioner began at the

hands of the Respondent No.6, who acting as the Principal,

initiated disciplinary proceedings into the Petitioner on account of

a solitary incident where he was delayed from his class by a mere

15 minutes.

10.11.2004 Petitioner offered an explanation for his conduct as demanded by

the Respondent No.6.

03.06.2005 A revised Education Code for Air Force Schools was issued by the
13

Air Force Education & Cultural Society, superseding the previous

Education Code. The code clearly established and recognized the

pervasive nature of the State’s Control over the Air Force Schools

inter alia vide the Directorate of Education at Air HQ which is

credited with having established the Society.

The Education Code clearly admits that the Air Force Schools

under its care are those that have been established by the Units at

Local Air Force Bases, and are only being run by them – in this

respect alone it is clear that the ultimate control over the AF

school is that of the Indian Air Force, while the Society is merely

an operating agency which functions at their behest.

 Consequently a clear distinction is made throughout the code

evident from Chapter 1 itself, between the “Board of Governors of

the IAF Educational & Cultural Society” on one hand and the

“Directorate of Education, Air Force HQ” on the other.

The pervasive nature of state control through the MOD, Air Force

can also be seen from the following clauses:

(a) To render final decision on the interpretation of any clause

or subject of the code (1.4)

(b) To procure CBSE affiliation which must be routed through

the Directorate of Education, AF HQ (1.8(f))

(c) To ultimately resolve all difficulties faced by the schools

which cannot be resolved at command level (1.8(k))

(d) To render financial assistance to such schools (1.9(b))

(e) To be the appropriate authority in respect of determining

pay scales and fixation of pay (4.8 & 4.9)

14
(f) To lay down the accounting procedure for all accounts vide

the IAP 3503 published under the authority of the Chief of

Air Staff (8.1 & 8.3)

(g) To issue a calendar of School Activities (10.2)

(h) To conduct without notice inspections of all schools to

ensure compliance with the code and other Air Force

directions (10.4(d))

(i) To open new schools and upgrade facilities (10.24)

(j) To ensure that all routine cases of building are constructed

out of public funds only and to grant permission to build on

MOD land (10.29 & 10.30)

27.11.2005 At the instigation of the Respondent No.6, girl students are

 compelled to file false complaints against the Petitioner so as to

scurry his name and reputation

30.11.2005 At the instance of the Respondent No.6, the Officer-in-charge

initiated an enquiry against the Petitioner to look into the false

accusations..

07.12.2005 Report was submitted after a secret enquiry was conducted by

Wing Commander H. V.Tiwari along with Sq. Leader Himani

Pandey

19.12.2005 The Petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on account of

(1) approaching his seniors to above the immediate change of

command, i.e. the Respondent No.6, to complain about her ill

treatment and harassment, (2) for allegedly compelling students

to attend private tuition with him; and (3) for eve teasing.

15

It is pertinent to note that (a) the Petitioner had been working with

a spotless record till that date and (b) the female students who

allegedly complained to the principal, later retracted their

statements and made written declaration that they were instigated

to make such false complaints at the behest of the Respondent

No.6 Smt. Shalini Kaul and her associates. The same has been

noted in the Order of the Hon’ble Division Bench dated

11.09.2006.

10.01.2006 When it was learnt that the Petitioner was preparing to challenge

the appointment of the Respondent No.6, as a counter blast, the

Respondent initiated a fresh domestic inquiry against the

 Petitioner on the same facts and allegations which had already

been enquired into and found to be false. A letter of warning was

issued to the Petitioner by Wing Commander under the undue

influence and pressure of the Respondent No.6.

27.01.2006 With no option, the Petitioner was compelled to address a Legal

Notice through his counsel to the Respondent Smt. Shalini Kaul.

23.02.2006 Petitioner is served with a copy of charge-sheet.

25.02.2006 Writ Petition bearing No.12437 of 2006 was filed by the Petitioner

seeking the following prayers

1. Issue a writ of mandamus to Respondents to not confirm the

appointment of the Respondent No.6, herein.

2. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to

produce the entire record relating to the selection and

appointment of the Respondent No.6.

16 3. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the selection of the

Respondent No.6 herein, as the Principal of the Air Force

School, Bamrauli as on 01.03.2004 and the subsequent

appointment dated 20.06.2004.

4. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to

replace the Petitioner as the Principal of the said school, and

to pay the entire backwages.

09.03.2006 The Petitioner filed reply to the Charge-sheet dated 23.02.2006.

06.04.2006 Writ Petition bearing No.19915 of 2006 was filed by the Petitioner,

challenging the charge-sheet dated 23.02.2006 and the

consequent proceedings, against the Central Board of Secondary

Education, the School Management Committee, Officer-in-

 charge/Education Officer, Sqr. Ldr. R. S.Pabla as Enquiry Officer,

Principal, Air Force School, Bamraul and Smt. Shalini Kaul as the

Respondents No. 1 to 6 respectively.

The relief claimed in this writ petition is as follows:

1. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents

No.2 to 5, therein, not to proceed with the domestic enquiry

on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 23.02.2006.

2. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to

restrain from proceeding with the enquiry against the

petitioner.

3. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the charge-sheet dated

23.02.2006 and further quash the consequent enquiry

proceedings as being malafide and malicious

4. Issue any other writ, order or direction as deemed fit.

5. To award cost of the writ petition to the Petitioner.

17 05.07.2006 Both the writ petitions namely 12437/06 and 19915/06 were heard

together and dismissed on the ground that the disciplinary

proceedings were pending and should not be interfered with.

However the writ Petitions were held maintainable. A true copy of

the order dated 05.07.2006 is attached hereto and marked

“ANNEXURE P-12” (Pages ……….. to ……….)

25.08.2006 The Petitioner challenged the order dated 05.07.2006 by filing two

Special Appeals which were numbered as Special Appeal

No.653/2006 against the order and judgment in writ petition No.

19915/06 and Special Appeal No.956/06 against the order and

judgment passed in writ petition No. 12437/06.

17.07.2006 Show-cause notice sent to the Petitioner proposing his dismissal

 from service. Received on 19.07.2006.

20.07.2006 The Petitioner filed his Reply to the Show-cause notice dated

17.07.2006. A true copy of the Reply to show-cause notice dated

20.07.2006 is attached hereto and marked “ANNEXURE P-13”

(Pages ……….. to ……….)

01.08.2006 Order of removal from service issued to the Petitioner, passed by

the Executive Officer/Director.

11.09.2006 Both the Special Appeals filed by the Petitioner were heard

together by the Hon’ble Division Bench which was pleased to hold

the Writ Petitions maintainable and stayed the removal order and

the proceedings under the charge-sheet. The court also recorded

that the Respondent No.6 on the date of the Second

Advertisement was 50 years 7 months and 9 days old while the

upper limit for appointment was set at 50 years.

18 After queries being made by the Court, itself, it was held that if the

show cause is inextricably connected with the appointment order

of the Respondent No.6 and the ground of malafide is good,

everything resting upon the show cause has to be quashed along

with it.

It is relevant to note it is this judgment and final order which the

Hon’ble Supreme Court took into consideration when issuing

notice in Dileep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors, in

SLP/7641/2011. The Writ Petitions were consequently remanded

to the Single Judge for hearing. A true copy of the Order dated

11.09.2006 is attached hereto and marked “ANNEXURE P-14”

(Pages ……….. to ……….)

 Jan-March The Air Headquarters Quarterly News Bulletin was published with
2008
news on the Air Force Schools wherein it clearly stated that the Air

Force Schools are of the Indian Air Force” and that Air HQ has

visited certain schools to inspect various aspects of school

administration, viz curricular and co-curricular activities,

infrastructural facilities and financials management. This

establishes the extent of proprietorship that the Air Force HQ has

over the said Air Force Schools and the level and minuteness of

control over their day to day activities.

10.12.2008 Respondent No.2 CBSE replies to an RTI inquiry as to whether

there is any relaxation given to the Air Force for Schools not

paying salary and allowance to schools staffs as per CBSE

Norms, has stated that “Being a Central Govt agency, the pay

scales prescribed by the Directorate of Education, Air HQ for its

staff have been accepted.” This establishes that the basis of

19 affiliation to the CBSE has been the fact that the Air Force

Schools have represented themselves to be Central Govt Agency

under the direct control of the Air Force.

02.03.2009 Press Information Bureau (Defence Wing) Government of India

announced the appointment of first ever Director General

(Administration) at Air Head Quarters, Vayu Bhavan, New Delhi

appointed to look after inter alia Air Force Schools. This

establishes that the ultimate responsibility of the school vests with

an Officer appointed under the Air Force Act, 1950 and not with

the Air Force Educational & Cultural Society.

09.09.2009 The Directorate of Education AIR HQ issued AIR

HQ/19275/2/1/ED setting the revision of pay scales and fee

 structure: AF Schools and guidelines on functioning of schools.

This document suppressed by the Respondents establishes that

Air Force HQ is ultimately responsible for the service conditions of

teachers, the number of students of various categories, the fees

levied etc. irrespective of the fact that there is a Society and an

Education Code.

21.10.2009 Counter Affidavit on behalf of Respondents No. 2 to 5 filed in the

WP/19915/2006. A true copy of the Counter Affidavit on behalf of

Respondents No.2 to 5 dated 21.10.2009 is attached hereto and

marked “ANNEXURE P-15” (Pages ……….. to ……….)

2010 Indian Air Force Head Quarters Training Command “Hand Book

Under RTI Act, 2005 which has been published with the objective /

purpose making concerned personnel aware of the role of HQ TC,

IAF. In the said Handbook it clearly states that the Command

Education Officer is responsible to the SOA for the Management

20
of Schools and KVs. This Handbook is still available on the official

Air Force Website at http://indianairforce.nic.in/RTI/RTI_TC.pdfThis

document has been suppressed by the Respondents.

07.02.2010 Rejoinder Affidavit on behalf of the Petitioner filed in the W. P.

No.19915 of 2006. A true copy of the Rejoinder Affidavit dated

07.02.2010 is attached hereto and marked “ANNEXURE P-16”

(Pages ……….. to ……….)

12.07.2010 In a separate Writ Petition filed before the High Court of Allahabad

bearing No.29790 of 2007, a Special Appeal bearing No.1074 of

2010 was filed where, interalia, the issue of Maintainability of the

Writ Petition on the ground that neither the institution, Air Force
 School Bamrauli, nor the Society, Air Force Educational & Cultural

Society, managing the institution was amenable to the writ

jurisdiction of this Court as it was not an instrumentality of the

State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

By an Order dated 12.07.2010 the Learned Division Bench

dismissed the Special Appeal on the ground of maintainability

holding that there was no material on record to establish the said

institution as State. A true copy of the Order dated Judgment

dated 12.07.2010 in the Special Appeal No.1074 of 2010 is

attached hereto and marked “ANNEXURE P-17” (Pages ………..

to ……….)

16.09.2010 The Learned Single Judge, in Writ No. 19915 of 2006 dismissed

the Writ Petition in view of the judgment in Union of India Vs.

Dileep Kumar Pandey (Special Appeal No. 1074 of 2010) decided

on 12.07.2010.

21

The Petitioner submits that the Learned Single Judge was bound

to hear the matter on merits in view of the Division judgment

arising out of the very same proceedings, namely the judgment

and final order dated 11.09.2006. A true copy of the Order

dismissing Writ Petition 19915 of 2006 dated 16.09.2010 is

attached hereto and marked as “ANNEXURE P-18” (Pages

……….. to ……….)

17.09.2010 The Petitioner was terminated from service by School

Management Committee Air Force School by reviving the order

dated 01.08.2006. A true copy of the Order terminating the

Petitioner’s service dated 17.09.2010 is attached hereto and

 marked “ANNEXURE P-19” (Pages ……….. to ……….)

04.10.2010 Application for stay of Order dated 16.09.2010 and consequent

order of Wg. Cdr. D. P. S.Rawat dated 17.09.2010 was filed

before the High Court of Allahabad. A true copy of the Application

dated 04.10.2010, for stay of Order dated 16.09.2010 is attached

hereto and marked “ANNEXURE P-20” (Pages ……….. to

……….)

07.10.2010 Special Appeal No. 1671 of 2010 was filed against the order and

judgment dated 16.09.2010 in W.P. 19915 of 2006. A true copy of

the Special Appeal No. 1671 of 2010 dated 07.10.2010 is

attached hereto and marked “ANNEXURE P-21” (Pages ………..

to ……….)

02.11.2010 The Learned Division Bench passed the Impugned Judgment

dismissing the Special Appeal No.1671 of 2010 and dismissing

22 the Writ Petition No.19915 of 2006 of the Petitioner on the

preliminary issue of maintainability. The Learned Division Bench

did not consider that the Learned Single Judge should have been

bound by the judgment in Sanjai Kumar Sharma’s case dated

11.09.2006 remanding the matters and holding them

maintainable. Nor did it consider that in view of its conflicting

opinion, it should have referred the matter to a larger bench for

consideration.

01.04.2011 The Apex Court admitted the SLP No.7641/2011 and issued

notice by an order dated 01.04.2011, in light of the conflict

between the judgment of two co-ordinate Division Benches of the

 High Court of Allahabad namely the order reported in 2006 (7)

ADJ 322 and the order of a co-ordinate Learned Division Bench in

Dileep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. (Special Appeal

No. 1074 of 2010) decided on 12.07.2010. It is pertinent to note

that the Impugned Order upheld the decision of the Single Judge,

which placed complete reliance on the case of Dileep Kumar

Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. (Special Appeal No.1074 of

2010), considering the correctness of the order in Dileep Kumar’s

case has been doubted by the Apex Court it is essential that the

impugned order be stayed which places complete reliance on the

same. A true copy of the Order of this Hon’ble Court in Dileep

Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors., in SLP/7641/2011 dated

01.04.2011 is attached hereto and marked “ANNEXURE P-22”

(Pages ……….. to ……….)

09.2011 Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment insomuch as it dismisses

23 the Writ Petition of the Petitioner and results in two conflicting

judgments on the same issue by two coordinate benches of the

Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, the Petitioner prefers the instant

Special Leave Petition.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2011

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
[WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF]
(Arising out of the Final Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2010 passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal 1671
of 2010)

IN THE MATTER OF: POSITION OF PARTIES

HIGH COURT THIS HON. COURT

SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA… PETITIONER PETITIONER

S/o Shri Rattan Lal Sharma,
R/o PGT, Commerce,
Air Force School,
Bamrauli, Allahabad

VERSUS

1. CENTRAL BOARD OF RESPONDENT NO.1 RESPONDENT NO.1

SECONDARY EDUCATION …
Shiksha Kendra Community
Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi - 92
24

2. SCHOOL MANAGEMENT RESPONDENT NO.3 RESPONDENT NO.2

COMMITTEE…
Air Force School,
Bamrauli, Allahabad,
Through it’s Chairman

3. OFFICER IN-CHARGE / RESPONDENT NO.3 RESPONDENT NO.3

EDUCATION OFFICER …
Air Force School,
Bamrauli, Allahabad, UP

4 SQR. LDR. R.S. PABLA, RESPONDENT NO.4 RESPONDENT NO.4

Enquiry Officer in enquiry
against the petitioner, through
School Management
Committee, Air Force School,
Bamrauli, Allahabad

5 PRINCIPAL, RESPONDENT NO.5 RESPONDENT NO.5

Air Force School, Bamrauli,
Allahabad (U.P.)
 6 SMT. SHALINI KAUL, RESPONDENT NO.6 RESPONDENT NO.6
W/o Shri. V.K. Kaul, R/o 76/4,
Stanley Road, Allahabad,
alleged principal of Air Force
School, Bamrauli, Allahabad

TO
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-

1. The Petitioner is filing the present Petition seeking Special Leave to

Appeal against the Final Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2010

passed by the Learned Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of

Allahabad in Special Appeal 1671 of 2010 whereby the Hon’ble

25
Division Bench dismissed the Special Appeal of the Respondents

holding unmaintainable, the Writ Petition against that the Air Force

School, Bamrauli under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . The

Learned Division Bench ought to have appreciated that a

coordinate bench had already held that a writ petition was

maintainable in a Special Appeal arising out of the very same

proceedings and that the learned Single judge ought to have

decided the matter on merits alone.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:-

The following substantial questions of law of public importance

arise for consideration by this Hon’ble Court:

 2.1 Whether the Air Force School, Bamrauli and the Indian Air Force

Education & Cultural Society are authorities within the meaning of

“State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India?

2.2 Whether the Air Force School, Bamrauli and the Indian Air Force

Education & Cultural Society are amenable to Writ Jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

2.3 Whether the Learned Division Bench ought to have respected the

final judgment and order of a coordinate bench passed in an appeal

arising out of the very same proceedings, in which it was held that

the Writ Petitions against the Air Force School Bamrauli were

maintainable, and in view of the same, the Learned Single judge

ought to have simply considered the matter on merits?

2.4 Whether in the light of the Education Code and other

documentation/material on record, to subject the Respondent

26
School, to the tests prescribed by this Hon’ble Court in Pradeep

Biswas v. Institute of Chemical Biology 2002(5)SCC111 and other

judgments, the Learned Division Bench misinterpreted the same

and erred in holding on the basis of pleadings that the Respondent

School was not an authority for the purposes of Article 12 of the

Constitution of India?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2):-

The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking Special Leave to

Appeal has been filed by him against the Final Judgment and Order

dated 02.11.2010 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature

at Allahabad in Special Appeal 1671 of 2010.

 4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6:-

The Annexures “P-1” to “P-21” produced along with the Special

Leave Petition are true copies of the pleading documents which

formed part of the records of the case in the High Court against

whose order the Special Leave Petition to appeal is sought in this

petition and “P-22” is an order of this Hon’ble Court in Dileep Kumar

Pandey v. Union of India & Ors, in SLP/7641/2011 dated

01.04.2011

5. GROUNDS:-

5.1 Because the Learned Division Bench ought to have appreciated

that once a coordinate bench had held a particular Writ Petition to

have been maintainable, the Learned Single Judge was bound to

dispose of the matter on merits and not consider the submissions of

27
a coordinate bench in an unconnected matter.

5.2 Because if the Learned Division Bench felt that despite the issue of

maintainability having already been decided in the present

proceedings by a coordinate bench, the issue of maintainability

should be revisited again, it was duty bound to refer the same to a

larger bench for consideration.

5.3 Because the Respondent School – “The Air Force School,

Bamrauli” is an authority for the purpose of Article 12 of the

Constitution and is also amenable to Writ Jurisdiction under Article

226 insomuch as it satisfies the triple test of finance, control and

purpose. The instant ligation has been defended and pursued by

 the Respondents entirely at the behest of the Union of India, who is

seeking to abridge its responsibilities under the Constitution of

India.

5.4 Because this Hon’ble Court in the judgment reported in Miss Raj

Soni v. Air Officer in Charge Administration (1990)3SCC261 has in

a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution pertaining to the

service conditions of a teacher at the Air Force School in Delhi,

passed orders holding that “The Executive Committee which

manages the school is headed by Air Force Officer Incharge

Administration AIR Force Headquarters, New Delhi and consist of

all high ranking Air Force officers of the rank of Sqdrn. Leader to Air

Marshal. The said membership is in their official capacity which

indicates complete control over the school by the Air Force,”

despite observing that School is a society registered under the

Societies Registration Act, 1960.

28

5.5 Because the Supreme Court as well as various High Courts

including the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad have held and

treated the various Air Force Schools as an authority within the

meaning of “State” under Article 12 and as an authority amenable

to Article 226 Jurisdiction.

5.6 Because there are now at least two conflicting Division Bench

judgments of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court which address the

issue as to whether the Respondent School is an authority for the

purpose of Article 12 and whether it is amenable to Writ Jurisdiction

under Article 226, namely Sanjai Kumar Sharma v. Central Board

of Secondary Education 2006(7)ADJ322 (DB) and the judgment

impugned herein.
 5.7 Because the impugned judgment places reliance in the case of

Union of India and others Vs. Dileep Kumar Pandey 2010(7) ADJ

91 (DB), in as far as dismissing the petition on the ground of

maintainability. In doing so the Learned Division Bench has failed to

appreciate that there was absolutely no material on record for the

Learned Division Bench, in the case of Dileep Kumar Pandey

(supra), to arrive at its findings on the Preliminary Issue that the

Respondent School is not an authority under Article 12. The

Learned Division Bench while holding that the Respondent School

is not an authority under Article 12 has not had an opportunity to

scrutinize the documents, reports etc of the Respondent School

that conclusively demonstrate that the Respondent School is under

the pervasive control of the Ministry of Defence.

5.8 Because the Learned Division Bench has erred in interpreting the

Education Code, which clearly establishes the deep and pervasive

29 control of the Air Force in the functioning of the Air Force Schools..

The Learned Division Bench while relying on this Hon’ble Court’s

judgment in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical

Biology (2002)5SCC111, failed to appreciate that the said

judgement was passed after a critical examination of the material

on record justifying the findings therein.

5.9 Because the Learned Division Bench has failed to consider the

judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Sainik School Employees

Association v. Defence Ministry cum Chairman AIR 1989 SC 88

which held in a Writ Petition under Article 32, that a welfare school

set up by the Defence Ministry and managed by a body registered

 under the Societies Registration Act, was held to be the State

within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

5.10 Because the Learned Division Bench failed to take notice of order

dated 11.09.2006 passed by a co-ordinate Division Bench in

Special Appeal No.653/2006 and Special Appeal No. 956/2006,

while passing the order of dismissal of the writ petitions therein on

the ground of maintainability. The writ petitions were earlier held to

be maintainable by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Agarwal (the then) by

the order dated 05.07.2006.

5.11 Because once the Respondent School is substantially financed by

the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, the functions of such

a School partake the character of an authority for the purposes of

Article 12. Assuming without admitting the Respondent-School’s

contention that they are getting reduced aid after having admitted

that initially they were fully financed, it is submitted, that if on

30

account of policy of the Government the financial aid which was

given initially allowing the Respondent-School to build up its own

infrastructure is subsequently reduced this would not defeat the

argument that substantial financial aid is being received and

therefore it is to be regarded as an 'authority' for the purposes of

Article 12.

5.12 Because institutions such as the Respondent-School discharge

public functions and a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Punjab and

Haryana High Court consisting of 5 judges as held in the judgment

reported in Miss. Ravneet Kaur vs. The Christian Medical College,

AIR1998P&H1, that once it does so, it cannot be regarded as a

private individual limiting the powers of the Court in issuance of

 directions including prerogative writs. It has further been held that

imparting of education is a public function irrespective of any

financial aid. Considering the institutions like the Respondent

School are performing public functions, affecting the life of a huge

segment of the society and in addition is receiving substantial

financial aid then it cannot be argued that it is not an 'authority' for

the purposes of Article 12 or is not amenable to Article 226 Writ

Jurisdiction.

5.13 Because the Learned Division bench failed to appreciate that the

fundamental rights of the Petitioner have been violated by the

Respondents particularly those enshrined under Article 14 and 16.

5.14 Because the direct control of the Air Force over the Air Force

Schools is evident from the Education Code of the Respondent

School which has been framed by the Chairman of the Board of

Governors of the Indian Air Force Education and Cultural Society

31

and bears the emblem of the Indian Air Force on its top cover.

Further, Chapter 8 Rule 9 of the said book deals with how the

finances are received; grant-in-aid as well as interconnection with

other service institution funds, are mentioned. To the knowledge of

the Petitioner there has been no specific permission granted to the

society to use the said Emblem.

5.15 Because the pervasive control of the Government over the

functioning of the Air Force schools has been admitted before the

Delhi High Court in the decision reported in Mrs. Veena Sharma v. The

Manager, No. 1 Air Force School , 2005(84)DRJ306, in which it has been

admitted that the conditions of service have been formulated in

consultation with Central Board of School Education under the

 Ministry of Education in consultation with the Department of

Secondary Education and Higher Education, Government of India:

“It is further averred that the present pay scales were

approved by the CBSE at the time of affiliation of the school

with that body. The pay scales of the teaching staff were

formulated by IAF Children Cultural Society in consultation

with CBSE which was approved by the Department of

Secondary Education and Higher Education, Government of

India, some time in October, 2000. The school also avers

that it is a Category-B school as per the criteria defined by

the said Society (IAF Children Cultural Society) and it cannot

be compared with private unaided recognized schools in

Delhi. It is further stated that admission to the school is open

to a very restricted and limited category of students, who are

from amongst the wards and children of Air Force, defense

32 and Central Government Personnel, particularly the children

of Air Force Employees at Palam.

5.16 Because the pervasive control of the Directorate of Education, Air

Head Quarter, Air Force, Ministry of Defence, Union of India over

the service conditions of the Air Force Schools’ employees is

admitted by the Respondent School has admitted in its Counter

Affidavit before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in WP/62028/09

in which it has admitted that it is subject to the Orders of the Air HQ

of Education, New Delhi:

“That as per the guidelines issued by the AIR HQ of

Education, vide Letters of Reference AIR/HQ/19275/2/1/ED

dated 16.04.2009 and 09.09.2009 no fee exemption is to be

 given to the wards of school staff. Hence the existing

provision on the fee for the wards of school staff has been

withdrawn and new fee structure with concession to wards of

Air Force School Employees has been put in place…. ”

5.17 Because the pervasive control of the Union of India can be seen

from the Orders of Air Headquarters, New Delhi, which the

Respondent School admittedly is subject to, has issued Air Force

Order No.9 dated 08.06.1985, whereby the standardization of the

numerous Unit Schools has sought to be achieved. That the said

Air Force Order makes it abundantly clear that the Ministry of

Defence, Union of India is in full administrative control over the

School, and prescribes everything from the nomenclature of the

School names, to the functioning of the schools to the uniform the

students wear to the terms and conditions of service.

5.18 Because what amounts to financing contribution cannot be straight-

33

jacketed into rigid formulae, of universal application. Of necessity,

each case would have to be examined on its own facts. It is

submitted that the percentage of funding is not "majority" financing,

or that the body is a society is not material. Equally, it may be that

the institution or organization is not controlled, and is autonomous

would also be irrelevant; That the organization does not perform -

or pre-dominantly perform - "public" duties too, may not be material,

as long as the object is achieving a felt need of a section of the

public, or to secure larger societal goals. To the extent of such

funding, indeed, the organization may be a tool, or vehicle for the

executive government's policy fulfillment plan, namely the right to

education IFCI Ltd. vs. Ravinder Balwani (17.08.2010 - DELHC) .

 5.19 Because the Respondent School satisfies the tests prescribed by

this Hon’ble Court in Pradeep Biswas v. Institute of Chemical

Biology 2002(5)SCC111 to be considered to be a State within the

meaning of Article 12, namely:

The picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests

formulated in Ajay Hasia are not a rigid set of principles so

that if a body falls within any one of them it must, ex

hypothesi, be considered to be a State within the meaning of

Article 12. The question in each case would be whether in

the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is

financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or

under the control of the Government. Such control must be

particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If

this is found them the body is a State within Article 12. On

the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory

34 whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to

make the body a State.

5.20 Because the business of education falls into the category of

discharge of public functions duties enshrined in Article 21A, 41

and 45 of the Constitution of India as well as the Right to Education

Act and does not constitute the likes of any business or commercial

activities whether bank, manufacturing units which relate to any

kind of business generating resources, employment, production

and resulting in circulation of money are no doubt, such which do

have impact on the economy of the country in general. But such

activities cannot be classified as one falling in the category of

discharging duties or functions of a public nature.'

 5.21 Because the inquiry started against the Petitioner on the grounds of

allegations of misconduct towards girl students has been time and

again shown to be a result of manipulation by the Respondent

No.6. These allegations were proved false as the students withdrew

the complaints, confessing to have been instigated by the

Respondent No.6 to file frivolous complaints on false grounds.

5.22 Because the enquiry setup against the Petitioner is wholly mala fide

and malicious, the result of which is a foregone conclusion being

the termination of the Petitioner from service. The charges framed

thereunder are absolutely false, frivolous and vexatious and in the

absence of any evidence against the Petitioner the whole charade

is in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:-

35
The Petitioner seeks interim relief on the following amongst other grounds:

6.1 Because the Petitioner has a good prima facie case that the Writ

Petition filed by him is maintainable and shall be put to irreparable

hardship if the Impugned Judgment is not stayed. Because the

balance of convenience is in favour of the Petitioner who has a

strong prima facie case.

6.2 Because with regard to the question of maintainability of the Writ

Petition bearing No.19915 of 2006 and No.12437 of 2006 the

matter has already been settled by a Division Bench in High Court

of Judicature at Allahabad by way of order dated 11.09.2006. The

Hon’ble Division Bench categorically pointed out that

 “if the show cause is inextricably connected with the appointment

order of Ms. Kaul, and further, if the ground of malafides is good,

then everything resting upon the show cause has to be quashed

alongwith it.”.

6.3 Because the order dated 01.08.2006 passed by Respondent

Authority is absolutely illegal and arbitrary order which is liable to

be set aside as the Respondents have not shown that they had any

cause to take such drastic measures. On the contrary the evident

connivance to jeopardize the Petitioner’s career is arbitrary and

unconstitutional.

6.4 Because the reasons given in the charge-sheet dated 23.02.2006

are a deliberate attempt to strong arm the Petitioner to drop pursuit

of Writ Petition No.12437 of 2006 challenging the Appointment of

Respondent No.6 and if not stayed/quashed would lead to failure of

justice.
36

6.5 Because the Charge-Sheet dated 23.02.2006, as challenged under

the Writ Petition No.19915 of 2006, is based on false and frivolous

grounds and must be stayed immediately and thereafter quashed.

That the grounds of the charge-sheet being alleged accusations by

ten girl students that have been withdrawn by the same, along with

respective submissions, of the female students, as to the true

reason behind filling the same. The Hon’ble Division Bench

recorded the true reasons for the complaint to be the insistence of

Respondent No.6, Smt. Shalini Kaul.

6.6 Because in view of the above, the orders dated 17.09.2010, passed

by the Executive Director by which Executive Director Air Force

 School Bamrauli, revived the effect of order dated 01.08.2006

whereby the Petitioner was dismissed from duty on unproved and

false accusations.

6.7 Because there is nothing in the said Respondent Orders which may

indicate that the same were passed on the ground of unsatisfactory

service of the Petitioner during his service period and since the said

Respondent Orders were not passed on the ground that allegations

against the Petitioner were proved or established, thus the

Respondents cannot be permitted to justify their action on the

aforesaid ground.

7. MAIN PRAYER:-

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be

pleased to:-

(a) Grant special leave to appeal to the Petitioner against the

37

Impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2010

passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

in Special Appeal 1671 of 2010.

(b) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

8.  PRAYERS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:- 

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may

be pleased to:-
 (a) Pass an ad interim order staying the operation of the

Impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2010

passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

in Special Appeal 1671 of 2010 during pendancy of this

Special Leave Petition;

(b) Pass an ad interim ex parte order staying the operation of

the Orders dated 17.09.2010 and 01.08.2006 issued by the

Respondent;

(c) Pass an ad interim order staying the operation and enquiry

under the charge-sheet dated 23.02.2006.

(d) Pass an ad interim ex parte order in terms of prayers (a), (b)

and (c) above ; and

(e) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

38
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS DUTY
BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

Place: New Delhi Filed By:

Date: …. .09.2011
.............................
[T. ANIL KUMAR]
Advocate for the
Petitioner

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ............. OF 2011

 (Arising out of the Final Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2010 passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal 1671
of 2010)

IN THE MATTER OF:

SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA... …PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ... …RESPONDENTS

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings
before the Court whose order is challenged and the other documents
relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts, documents or
grounds have been taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave
Petition. It is further certified that the copies of the documents/Annexures
attached to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the
question of law raised in the Petition or to make out grounds urged in the
Special Leave Petition for consideration of this Hon’ble Court. Annexure
P-22 is an order of this Hon’ble Court. This certificate is given on the
basis of the instructions given by the Petitioner/person authorised by the
Petitioner whose Affidavit is filed in support of the SLP.
39

Place: New Delhi Filed By:

Date: …. .09.2011
[T. ANIL KUMAR]
Advocate for the
Petitioner
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
IA NO. ............. OF 2011
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ............. OF 2011

IN THE MATTER OF:

SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA... …PETITIONER

VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ... …RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER SEEKING

CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING

TO
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE APPLICATION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-

40
1. The Applicant is the Petitioner in the accompanying Special Leave

Petition, the detailed facts of which are not being repeated here for the

sake of brevity.

2. That the Petitioner is preferring this instant application as he

requires to explain the delay of ....... in refilling. The reason for the same is

that the files of the Petitioner were kept by the Advocate in G-10

Nizamuddin West, basement. That the said basement flooded completely

and the files and computers were severely damaged. That to salvage what

could be of the files and computers; the files were taken in bulk. However

due to the force majeure situation the files and computers could not be

taken in an organised manner and the file is untraceable. That the

Advocate of the Petitioner in charge of the file also had personal family
 difficulties which prevented him from expeditiously working on the same.

That the Petitioner’s advocate has only now been able to reconstitute the

files.

3. That the Application is being made bona fide and in the interest of

justice.

PRAYER

In these circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may be pleased to;

(a) Condone the delay of .......... days in refilling of the Special

Leave Petition by the Petitioner; and

(b) Pass any other Order or Orders as may be deemed fit and

proper.

41 Place: New Delhi Filed By:

Date: …. .09.2011

T. ANIL KUMAR
Advocate for the
Petitioner
42