Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S.Sonak, Jitendra Jain
Vilas Prabhakar Lad – Appellant
Versus
Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jitendra Jain, J.
1. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By consent of the parties, matter is heard finally since the pleadings are complete.
2. This is a matter where all the statutory, regulatory and law enforcement agencies remained stand still for five years from the fraud having surfaced till today more so when the fraud was committed on these very authorities which should have awakened them and they ought to have moved with lightning speed for discharging their duties to set criminal action in motion.
3. The Petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has sought for following reliefs:-
“(a) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing
(i) Union of India, through its Income Tax Department to cancel and suspend as well as inquire into the bogus PAN card Number ACVPL3264C.
(ii) Direct the Unique Identification Authority of India to suspend and cancel the Aadhaar Card Number 592509117750.
(iii) To direct the Andhra Bank having branch at Navrangpur Branch to freeze the account number 08721110000502
Statutory authorities have a duty to act promptly against fraud, and their inaction constitutes dereliction of duty, particularly in safeguarding citizens' identity.
Point of law: Section 2(e) defines Authority to mean the Unique Identification Authority of India Section 2(g) defines biometric information to be a photograph, a fingerprint, iris scan or such other....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for banks to adhere to the principles of natural justice, including providing notice and opportunity for representation, before ....
Economic offences involving fraudulent GST registrations require stringent scrutiny in bail applications due to their serious implications for public interest and financial integrity.
The court emphasized the serious nature of economic offences, affirming that bail is the exception, especially when substantial financial loss to the state is involved.
The principle of double jeopardy does not apply when offences under IPC and GST Act are distinct, emphasizing the serious nature of economic crimes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
