Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the second writ petitioner has contended that, the respondent No. 2 admitted that he was with the AITC on June 11, 2021. He has acknowledged the press conference and its contents. He has pointed out that, the written statement of the respondent No. 2 was not properly verified.

10. Referring to the doctrine of non-traverse and deemed admission, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the second writ petitioner has referred to the written statement filed by the respondent No. 2 as also the sur rejoinder filed by him in the proceedings before the respondent No. 1. He has contended that, the statements made by the writ petitioner, stood admitted by the respondent No. 2 in the proceedings before the respondent No. 1. He has pointed out that, the respondent No. 1 is also guilty of evasive denial and that, such denial is required to be construed as an admission. He has relied upon AIR 1964 SC 538 (Badat & Co Bombay Vs. East India Trading Co.) in support of his contention.

18. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 has pointed out that the respondent No. 2 filed a reply to which, the second writ petitioner filed a sur rejoinder along with printouts of screenshots of social media posts and a compact disc allegedly containing video footage of the press conference held by the AITC on June 11, 2021. He has contended that, a certificate claimed to be under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 was also filed with respect to the screenshots and the compact disc.

24. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent No. 1 and 3 has contended that, allegations of bias against the respondent No. 1 is unfounded. He has pointed out that, although the application of the second writ petitioner was deficient in view of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1986 warranting dismissal under Rule 7 (2) thereof nonetheless, the respondent No. 1 had permitted rectification thereof. Rectification affidavit had contained only news reports which were not accompanied by any certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. In rejoinder, the second writ petitioner had submitted screenshots and compact disc without verification and the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. After relegation of the matter to the respondent No. 1 by the High Court, unsigned written notes were submitted by the second writ petitioner. The respondent No. 1 had allowed the second writ petitioner to rectify defects. Despite there being an objection from the respondent No. 2 via his sur rejoinder, to the production of evidence with rejoinder, the respondent No. 1 instead of rejecting the same, allowed oral evidence.

37. The second writ petitioner had filed a rejoinder to the written comments of the respondent No. 2. In such a rejoinder, again, assertions as to the respondent No. 2 defecting to the AITC had been made. Various materials including electronic materials had been relied upon.

38. The respondent No. 2 had filed a sur rejoinder to the rejoinder of the second writ petitioner. He had denied the allegation of defection in his sur rejoinder. However, he had affirmed 2025:CHC-AS:2072-DB paragraphs 1 and 11 of the sur rejoinder as true to his knowledge. Paragraphs 1 and 11 of the sur rejoinder has no denial with regard to his defection.