M/S SANDAL TRAVEL PVT. LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

CWP/20122/2013

AI Insights

M/s Sandal Travel Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Union of India and another respondent, which dismissed their appeal and cancelled their eligibility letter for a registration certificate under the Emigration Act, 1983. The petitioner argued that the cancellation was unjustified, claiming eligibility and proper conduct in their application process. However, the court found that the petitioner had concealed significant facts, including the criminal background of a former director and the true ownership and management structure of the company, which was linked to a previous recruiting agency that faced legal issues. The court concluded that the petitioner was not a bona fide litigant and had attempted to mislead the authorities, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 737557 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Emigration Act, 1983
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMEET MAHAJAN; AMIT KOHAR
• Keywords: Concealment of Material Facts; Misrepresentation; Registration certificate; Emigration Act; Recruiting agency
• Section: 23

Judgement Text

"CWP NO.20122 of 2013 1 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.20122 of 2013 Date of decision:11.09.2013 M/s Sandal Travel Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Amit Kohar, Advocate, for the petitioner. RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.8.2013 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.1, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 25.3.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2, thereby cancelling the eligibility letter of the petitioner- company and rejecting its application for grant of registration certificate as recruiting agency under the Emigration Act, 1983. Brief facts of the case, necessary for disposal of the present writ petition, are that the petitioner-company was registered with the Registrar of Companies from the year 2001. Petitioner-company had been doing the business of providing travel related services particularly in the matter of ticketing. It is further pleaded case of the petitioner that petitioner was accredited to the International Air Transport Association. Previously, S/Shri Mukesh Sharma and Rajesh Sharma were the Directors of the Saluja Mukesh Kumar 2013.11.14 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.20122 of 2013 2 Company. They resigned in the year 2011. Shri Pushpender Singh and Smt. Sonia Sharma, wife of Shri Mukesh Sharma, were inducted as Managing Director and Director respectively, of the petitioner-company, as per Annexures P-1. Petitioner-company applied for registration certificate under the Emigration Act, 1983 with respondent No.2 vide Annexure P-2 alongwith affidavit. Application of the petitioner was forwarded to respondent No.1. On examination of the application of the petitioner, certain deficiencies were pointed out by respondent No.1 vide letter dated 11.12.2012 (Annexure P-3). Vide communication dated 23.2.2013 (Annexure P-4), respondent No.1 informed the petitioner-company about the eligibility of the petitioner, which was subject to the availability of all other requisite documents, as per existing instructions. Vide communication dated 8.3.2013 (Annexure P-5), respondent No.1 wrote to respondent No.2 about confirmation of bank guarantee, submitted by the petitioner for new registration certificate and respondent No.2 was requested to take necessary action. When the matter was closely scrutinized in the office of respondent No.2, it transpired that the claim of the petitioner was based on misrepresentation and concealment of material facts. After examining the matter in detail, application of the petitioner seeking registration certificate was rejected vide impugned communication dated 25.3.2013 (Annexure P- 6) issued by respondent No.2. Petitioner filed the appeal under Section 23 of the Emigration Act, 1983, vide Annexure P-7. Department submitted its self-contained reply vide Annexure P-8. Thereafter, appellate authority passed the impugned order dated 22.8.2013 (Annexure P-9), dismissing the Saluja Mukesh Kumar 2013.11.14 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.20122 of 2013 3 appeal of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was eligible and entitled for grant of new registration certificate. Respondent authorities misdirected themselves while passing the impugned order. He further submits that once S/Shri Mukesh Sharma and Rajesh Sharma ceased to be Directors of the petitioner-company, there was nothing wrong in appointing fresh Directors of the company, i.e. Shri Pushpender Singh and Smt. Sonia Sharma, wife of Shri Mukesh Sharma. He next contended that since the petitioner-company committed no illegality and was fully competent to get itself registered as recruiting agent, the impugned orders were liable to be set aside. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders, by allowing the present writ petition. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present one is not a fit case warranting any interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. A bare combined reading of both the impugned orders and the counter affidavit, Annexure P-8, filed on behalf of the Department before the appellate authority, would make it abundantly clear that the case of the petitioner-company was based on misrepresentation and concealment of facts. FIR No. 135 dated 13.7.2008 under Sections 218, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120-B IPC, Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under the Passport Act was registered against Shri Mukesh Sharma, former Saluja Mukesh Kumar 2013.11.14 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.20122 of 2013 4 Director of petitioner-company and husband of Smt. Sonia Sharma-present Director of the petitioner-company. Two show-cause notices dated 20.7.2012 and 21.12.2012 were issued against the ex-recruiting agent, on the basis of complaints received from the Indian Mission, Abu Dhabi as well as S/Shri Salim and Abdul Azeem. Shri Mukesh Sharma was also the Proprietor of M/s Swastik Travel Services, Chandigarh and he was facing criminal trial in the above-said FIR. Action had already been initiated for forfeiture of the bank guarantee submitted by Sh. Mukesh Sharma for the registration certificate of M/s Swastik Travel Services. Shri Pushpender Singh, Managing Director of the petitioner- company in the application Annexure P-2 as well as Smt. Sonia Sharma, wife of Shri Mukesh Sharma, while submitting her affidavit dated 3.7.2012, kept conveniently silent about the above-said material facts including the registration of FIR, thereby concealing the relevant informative facts. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the respondent authorities committed no error of law, while passing the impugned orders and the same deserve to be upheld. The application for registration as recruiting agent (Annexure P-2), submitted on behalf of the petitioner-company, also contained an undertaking at its foot. Clause (a) of the undertaking at page 44 of the paper-book, reads as under:- “(a) I undertake that in the event of any of the information furnished above being found to be false or incorrect in any respect, the Certificate is liable to be cancelled.” Since the Managing Director of the petitioner-company Saluja Mukesh Kumar 2013.11.14 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.20122 of 2013 5 furnished an incorrect and misleading information while applying for registration certificate as recruiting agent, it was bound to be rejected and has been rightly rejected by way of impugned orders. Another equally important aspect of the matter is that present Managing Director of the petitioner-company namely Shri Pushpender Singh was none else but an ex-employee of the petitioner-company. In the computation of income for the year 2011-12 for filing income tax return, Shri Pushpender Singh has been shown as an employee of M/s Sandal Travel Pvt. Ltd., which is a matter of record and depicted as such in Annexure P-8. In the application form (Annexure P-2) neither the present Managing Director of the petitioner-company nor the other Directors have disclosed their relation with former director of the company Sh. Mukesh Sharma, in spite of the fact that they were, as a matter of fact, in one way or the other related with Sh. Mukesh Sharma, proprietor of M/s Swastik Travel Service. Thus, it becomes clear that the determined effort of the petitioner- company was to get the registration certificate for recruiting agency as benami of same very Mukesh Sharma against whom the above-said FIR was registered and he was facing criminal trial. Once the above-said material facts came to the notice of the respondent authorities, impugned order dated 25.3.2013(Annexure P-6) was passed and the operative part thereof reads as under:- “Whereas, there is reason to believe that if the RC is issued on the basis of the present application for grant of RC, it will only be a benami of Shri Mukesh Sharma against whom, an FIR has already been lodged and the matter is under investigation, and whereas action has already been initiated for Saluja Mukesh Kumar 2013.11.14 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.20122 of 2013 6 forfeiture of the Bank Guarantee submitted by him for the said RC (M/s Swastik Travel Services, Chandigarh). Now, Therefore, the undersigned in exercise of the powers of Protector General of Emigrants conferred under the provisions of the Emigration Act, 1983 order accordingly and cancels the Eligibility Letter (EL) dated 23rd February, 2013 issued and this application for grant of Registration Certificate is rejected accordingly.” Again the appellate authority, while passing the impugned order dated 22.8.2013 (Annexure P-9), proceeded on factually correct and legally justified approach, rightly dismissing the appeal of the petitioner- company. The relevant part of the order contained in paras 4 and 5 thereof, reads as under:- “4. Manpower export is a sensitive business. Persons coming before the PGE are, by definition, persons who have not passed 10th class examination. Therefore, it is the poorest and most helpless workers who are involved. Proper care and concern for these poor people, travelling to an alien culture, thousands of miles away, is the prime concern of the Government and indeed the society. It is for this reasons that the Emigration Act, 1983 provides that if PGE is satisfied that a particular person is not a fit person for giving licence, under the Emigration Act, 1983 then may deny such a person a new licence or cancel his existing licence. While admitting that exercise of such powers cannot be arbitrary, yet the comfort that the PGE has to have, with respect to a person who he is Saluja Mukesh Kumar 2013.11.14 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.20122 of 2013 7 authorizing to export manpower services of the most vulnerable section of the society, cannot be understand in its importance. 5. In this case, the suspicion that Smt. Sonia Sharma is nothing more than a front for her husband is brought out by several factors. Firstly, her application has been made only after her husband's licence, in the name of M/s Swastik Travel Services, Chandigarh was not renewed and was issued a show cause notice for forfeiture of Bank Guarantee; or, in other words, it was no longer possible to indulge in manpower export on the licence of M/s Swastik Travel Services because that was not renewed. Conclusion can safely be drawn that new licence seeks to replace the one that was not renewed. Secondly, the applicant's company is one M/s Sandal Travels Pvt. Limited, Chandigarh of which Shri Mukesh Sharma had been Director, and he has exited the company only to make it appear that he is not involved in the company anymore. Form 32 does show his resignation w.e.f. 2008 but it is not clear on what day, and which year, was Form 32 actually filed; only the date of filing can be trusted as it is authenticated by a 3rd party; otherwise there is always the possibility of filing papers later, showing resignation from an earlier date (by paying late fee etc.). Thirdly, it is also noted that Shri Pushpinder Singh was an employee of M/s Sandal Travels Pvt. Limited even when Shri Mukesh Sharma was a Director of M/s Sandal Travels Pvt. Limited; and that it is Shri Pushpinder Singh who has replaced Shri Mukesh Sharma as Director of the Company. There is, Saluja Mukesh Kumar 2013.11.14 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.20122 of 2013 8 therefore, no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the respondent in the counter-affidavit that Shri Pushpinder Singh is a mere nominee of Shri Mukesh Sharma, and company M/s Sandal Travels Pvt. Limited, having Smt. Sonia Sharma and Shri Pushpinder Singh is only a front company of Shri Mukesh Sharma.” Since the case of the petitioner was based on falsehood, malafide intention, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts, it has been rightly held not entitled for registration certificate as recruiting agent. Principles of natural justice will not be attracted in the present case. It is so said because the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence at the hands of this Court. It is the settled proposition of law that one who seeks equity must come to the Court with clean hands. Petitioner did not come to the Court with clean hands. In spite of the fact that case of the petitioner was liable to be summarily rejected, the respondent authorities passed self-contained orders, which have been found to be supported with cogent reasons and were passed, in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that petitioner was not a bonafide litigant. Efforts were made on behalf of the petitioner to mislead the authorities by concealing the material facts. Thus, the present one is a fit case, wherein the principle of suppressio veri; suggestio falsi would be attracted. Further, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner could not put into service any substantive argument so as to convince this Court to take a different view than the one taken here-in- Saluja Mukesh Kumar 2013.11.14 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP NO.20122 of 2013 9 above. No prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner, while passing the impugned orders. Petitioner has got no case either in law or in equity. No other argument was raised. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the instant writ petition is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Resultantly, the present writ petition stands dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 11.09.2013 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE Saluja Mukesh Kumar 2013.11.14 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "