Delhi High Court - Orders
Rana Pratap Singh vs Director General (Persion Head Quaters ... on 27 February, 2019
Author: Hima Kohli
Bench: Hima Kohli, Manoj Kumar Ohri
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1817/2018
RANA PRATAP SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Narang, Advocate
versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL (PERSION HEAD QUATERS GOVT. OF
NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC for
Respondent no.1
Ms. Shiva Lakshmi CGSC and Mr.
Siddharth Singh, Advocate for
Respondent no.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
ORDER
% 27.02.2019
1. Vide order dated 30.08.2018, a learned Single Judge of this Court had directed that the present petition be placed before a Division Bench as the petitioner seeks to challenge to the vires of the Rules under which his request for Furlough is considered each time, by making a reference to the BSF, instead of it being considered by the DG (Prisons).
2. When the matter was placed before the predecessor Bench, an order was passed on 26.09.2018, to implead BSF as a party to the present proceedings. The amended memo of parties came to be filed by the W.P.(CRL) 1817/2018 page 1 of 3 petitioner and both the respondent No.1/DG (Prisons) as also respondent No.2 /DG (BSF) have filed their replies.
3. Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 draw our attention to the prayers in the present petition to urge that the petitioner has not challenged the vires of any provision of the BSF Acts/Rules for which purpose, the matter has been placed before a Division Bench.
4. The prayer clause of the writ petition is reproduced below:-
"15. The Petitioner prays to this Hon'ble Court to:
a) Direct the DG (Prisons) to follow the procedure established by law viz. Parole/Furlough: Guidelines 2010 for assessing the furlough application of the Petitioner.
b) Direct the DG (Prisons) to follow point No. 29 of the Parole/Furlough: Guidelines 2010 for assessing the application of furlough of the Petitioner.
c) Direct the DG (Prisons) to not to forward the application of the Petitioner for Furlough to the DG (BSF) because that is not a procedure established by law and is thus arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
d) Compensate the Petitioner for the lost opportunity of availing 13 Furloughs since 2012, when the Petitioner became eligible to apply for Furloughs, due to the rejection of the Petitioner's application of Furlough because the Respondent followed a procedure not prescribed by law.
e) Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit."
5. A bare perusal of the prayers made above reveals that the petitioner has not laid any challenge to the vires of Section 128 of the BSF Act. Even the grounds taken in the present petition only highlight the fact that W.P.(CRL) 1817/2018 page 2 of 3 forwarding of an application of Furlough by the respondent No.1/DG (Prisons) to the respondent No.2/DG (BSF), is not an established procedure by law and that Section 128 of BSF Act has been wrongly invoked for the said purpose.
6. In the absence of any challenge to the vires of any provision of the BSF Act/Rules, there is no reason for the petition to be placed before the Division Bench. The same is required to be placed back before the learned Single Judge. Subject to the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, list the matter before the learned Single Judge on 07.03.2019, for further proceedings.
HIMA KOHLI, J
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2019
j/savita
W.P.(CRL) 1817/2018 page 3 of 3