Shivajee Rao vs Bangalore Mahanagara Palika

LEARNED counsel for the applicant/opposite party No. 2 heard on the review petition.

AT the very outset, he submits that all these arguments could not be raised on the last date of final hearing. He contends that now the opposite party No. 2 has engaged a new counsel, who will take a chance of convincing this Commission that no deficiency lies with the Opposite party No. 2. It is interesting to note that this review petition runs into 292 pages. Virtually, Mr. Amit S. Chadha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Srishti Govil, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 is asking for 2nd innings for the arguments.

WRITTEN submission made by learned counsel for the applicant was that in the impugned judgment, the Commission has placed reliance on the affidavit of one, Shri Sudarshan wherein he claimed to be an eye witness. It was argued that this affidavit is false. In this context, he has invited our attention towards the photocopies of newspaper clips, one of the same reads as follows: "His cousin Sudarshan told this paper that the family had decided to help him get over his foar of water by encouraging him to swim. "He joined the swimming centre on April 2, along with me. We were in the 8.30 -9.30 p.m. batch, as we could finish work and then go to the pool. I was not too regular, and so was Smruthi; he would not go when I was not free to go with him. He was scared. Unfortunately, on April 16, Smruthi went alone," said Sudharshan."

The name of the newspaper is not highlighted though there is another newspaper cutting, which also does not mention the name of the paper but mentions : "Sudarshan, a friend of Sharma, has been running from pillar to post to press the police to find out the truth.

THE attention of this Commission was also invited towards the Panchnama which is signed by Sudarshan but he has nowhere claimed that he is an eye witness. Lastly, he invited our attention towards attendance register where the name of Sudershan is not marked. He contended that these documents were produced by the complainant.

TO our mind, all these documents carry exiguous value. The newspaper clips have not been proved by legal evidence. The persons, who had recorded the statements were not produced nor their affidavits saw the light of the day. Again, those are the Photostat copies simpliciter. It is not necessary that Shri Sudershan in the Panchnama himself states that he is an eye witness.

NOW , we turn to the register of attendance and fees. Only 14 candidates have been shown there. The names of Shri S. Ranjan and Shri Sudershan are not clearly written. There is manipulation and over writings and the words are not clear. No affidavit of the person, who maintained the Register, was produced. Moreover, somebody has written "on that day, Shri S. Ranjan was present, Shri Sudershan was absent, so the affidavit given by Sudershan stating that he is an eye witness is a false statement." It appears that this endorsement was written subsequently and that too, with the blue ink whereas the over writings of 14 candidates and their attendance is written with black pen. Consequently, all these facts and circumstances necessitated the affidavit of its author, which was unfortunately not filed.

ALL these arguments carry no weight and are to be eschewed out of consideration.

THE second submission made by learned counsel for the applicant was that coach Srinivasan could not be produced because he is facing criminal trial. He has taken the plea that his statement being facing a criminal trial, cannot be recorded or he cannot be compelled to make a statement. It is thus clear that the applicant wants to hide the truth from this Commission. The fact that he is facing criminal trial or not, does not make any difference. The truth has to prevail in all the circumstances. There is no ground for review of our order .

THEREFORE , the review petition is hereby dismissed.