Disposed

Pratyush Kanth v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC1 May 2019W.P.(C)/3407/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition alleging misuse of the State emblem by respondent officers. The court directed the Union of India to independently examine the violation of the State Emblem Act and decide on prosecution initiation within two months, pending sanction application considerations.

What did the court decide?

The Union of India directed to examine the violation of the Act and consider prosecution initiation within two months, pending its application for sanction.

Pratyush Kanth Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3407/2015 & CM APPL. 6100/2015, CM APPL. 25424/2016

¶4

PRATYUSH KANTH ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr Rajeev Kumar Yadav, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI with Ms Mehak Bakshi, Advocates for R1.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 01.05.2019

¶9

None appears for respondent nos. 2 to 5, despite service of notice.

¶10

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia , praying that directions be issued to respondent no.1 to grant sanction to prosecute respondent nos. 4 and 5 for misusing the State emblem, in contravention of Section 3 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 (hereafter ‘the Act’).

¶11

The petitioner has alleged that respondent no. 5 has issued identity cards bearing the State emblem to various representatives of respondent no.4. It is contended that the same is in violation of the Act. Respondent no.1 (Union of India) has filed an affidavit affirming that respondent no.5 had not sought any permission from respondent no.1 to use the State emblem, and no permission in this regard had been granted. According to

¶12

respondent no. 1, respondent no.5 is liable to be punished under Section 7(1) of the Act.

¶13

It is seen that in terms of Section 8 of the Act, no prosecution can be initiated, without prior sanction of the Central Government. This Court is also informed that the petitioner has already filed an application with respondent no.1 seeking such sanction. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 states that no action on the petitioner’s application was taken, on account of pendency of the present petition.

¶14

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by directing respondent no.1 to first of all examine whether there is any violation of the Act, and if so, to consider whether the same warrants initiation of prosecution.

¶15

Respondent no.1 shall take an independent view in the matter and dispose of the petitioner’s application within a period of two months, from today. No further orders are required to be passed in this petition.

¶16

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The pending applications are disposed of.

¶17

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶18

MAY 01, 2019 pkv

Pratyush Kanth v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratyush Kanth v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tek Chand Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sharad Tewatia & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rakesh Gulati and Ors. Vs Federal Bank Ltd. and Ors.

State Bank of India Vs M/S Jaspark Speciality Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Hajra Topia Vs Union of India and Ors.

S. Sadachari Sai Baba Om Ji Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs UOI and Ors.

Bano Devi and Anr. Vs National Commission for Scheduled Castes

Ram Swaroop Vs Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Lt D.

Subhash Virmani and Anr. Vs Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sachin Taneja Vs Sonali Nath

M/S Om Shyam Traders Vs Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee

X Minor through His Mother Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Daulat Ram Punia and Ors. Vs Commandant Base Hospital and Anr.