Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
Abhishek Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through Secretary Mha & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 4159 of 2023
Decided On : 05-04-2023
Stay - Suspension of Sentence - The court directed the respondents to decide the application for suspension of sentence within one week and communicate the decision to the petitioner within two days thereafter with a reasoned order. The petitioner was also allowed to approach the appropriate forum if aggrieved by the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a stay on the impugned order and suspension of sentence passed against him. The court directed the respondents to decide the application for suspension of sentence and communicate the decision to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to provide the petitioner with a copy of the trial proceedings and to decide the application for suspension of sentence within a specified timeframe.
Issues: Stay on impugned order, suspension of sentence, supply of trial proceedings, and statutory petition under Section 117 (2) of the BSF Act, 1968.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the respondents to promptly decide the application for suspension of sentence and provide the petitioner with the trial proceedings.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the application by directing the respondents to decide the application for suspension of sentence within one week and provide the trial proceedings to the petitioner within three days.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
CM APPL. 16127/2023
1. Vide the present application, applicant/petitioner is seeking stay on impugned order report dated 16.02.2023 passed by the Commandant 157 Bn BSF and suspension of sentence passed against him.
2. Notice issued.
3. Learned counsel for non-applicants/respondents accepts notice and submits that pursuant to impugned order dated 16.02.2023, petitioner has filed an application on 05.03.2023 for suspension of sentence, however, the same is pending for consideration before them.
4. We hereby dispose of present application by directing the respondents to decide the application dated 05.03.2023 filed by the petitioner within one week from today and decision thereof be communicated to petitioner within two days thereafter in writing with a reasoned order.
5. Needless to say, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision of the respondents on his application, he may approach the appropriate forum.
W.P.(C) 4159/2023
6. Vide the present petition, petitioner prays as under:
(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the respondent may to supply copy of the trial proceedings to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and the petitioner may be allowed to prefer a Petition under Section 117 (2) of the BSF Act, 1968 and the sentence passed against the petitioner by the Commandant 157 BB BSF dated 16.02.2023 may remain suspended till adjudication of the said statutory petition to be preferred under 117 (2) of the BSF Act.
7. Learned counsel for respondents, who is appearing on advance notice, on instructions, submits that Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) proceedings dated 16.02.2023 are from Guwahati enroute to Delhi and the moment they receive, the same shall be supplied to the petitioner.
8. In view of above, we hereby direct the respondents to provide aforesaid SSFC proceedings to the petitioner within three days.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.
Copy of order be given dasti under signatures of Court Master.
Prompt decision on application for suspension of sentence and provision of trial proceedings to the petitioner.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule 167(2) of the BSF Rules and the court's direction to the respondents to decide the petition within a specified timeframe....
The importance of informing the petitioner about the confirmation of the suspension order and providing the option to approach the appropriate forum if aggrieved.
Court directed the Director General of BSF to expeditiously decide the petitioner's application for suspension of sentence within four weeks, without commenting on the merits of the case.
The court has the authority to direct the respondent to decide on petitions for suspension of sentence within specified timelines, especially when rigorous imprisonment is involved.
Entitlement to documents and expeditious adjudication under the BSF Act.
A petitioner is entitled to access documents of disciplinary proceedings to ensure fairness in adjudication under the BSF Act.
Timely adjudication of statutory petitions and suspension of sentence under the Border Security Force Act.
The court emphasized the importance of timely adjudication of statutory petitions and the provision of relevant documents to ensure procedural fairness in administrative processes.
The court directed timely adjudication of a statutory petition under the Border Security Force Act, ensuring procedural compliance without addressing the merits.
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
