Re-litigation of similar issues decided in previous orders cannot be permitted: Delhi High Court
Abuse of the process of court cannot be permitted, the court observed that the Petitioner’s contention have earlier been considered in the previous order and the current petition would again lead to investigation of the similar facts which cannot be permitted. Hence the division bench refused to entertain re-litigation of the same issue. The Delhi High Court presided over by J. R. Sahai &amp; J. A. Menon laid down this ratio in the case of H.C. Ram Naresh Vs. Union of India, [W.P.(C) 10853/2020].   The facts of the case are that a Petitioner filed a petition before the Court seeking directions from the court to the Indo-Tibetan border police for consideration of a third medical report apart from apart from earlier medical reports of the medical board and appeal medical board of the ITPB which diagnosed the petitioner with alcohol dependence syndrome. The petition was considered by the Delhi high court which granted the relief to the petitioner; however, the petitioner filed another writ petition before the court regarding the same issue. The court heard the petitioner’s argument but observed that it had already considered the contentions in the previous petition. The respondents submitted before the court that they would comply with the previous court orders and consider the third medical report before taking any steps against the petitioner regarding the disciplinary proceedings. The Division bench of the Court observed that the new writ petition filed has sought similar relief finding flaws in the previous order. The Court was of the opinion that if such re-litigation is permitted it would be an abuse to the process of law.  The Court further stated that, “The petitioner, earlier found to be suffering from Alcohol Dependence Syndrome, now appears to be suffering from Litigation Dependence Syndrome.” The Court further stated that, “The petitioner cannot be permitted to frustrate the action if any, liable to be taken against him, in this manner and it is high time that such attempts are put to a stop. If we entertain this petition at this interim stage of the action, if any, to be taken by the respondents against the petitioner, the same will again defer the decision, if any, to be taken against the petitioner.”
VC 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 22nd December 2020 W.P.10853 2020 CM APPL. No.34028 2020H.C. RAM NARESH UNION OF INDIA & ORS Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Shukla with Ms. Bhawna Massey Advocates Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj CGSC for UOI with Mr. Kushagra Kumar Mr. Ashu Pathak Advocates. HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW J. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P. 6717 2018 seeking mandamus directing the respondents no. 3 and 4 Indo Tibetan Border Police to obtain a third medical opinion to find out the truthfulness of the findings of the Medical Board and the Appeal Medical Board of the respondents no. 3 and 4 ITBP of the petitioner having Alcohol Dependence Syndrome by referring the petitioner either to All India Institute of Medical Sciences or to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital or to any other hospital and to extend to the petitioner the W.P.10853 2020 benefits of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.7875 2017 titled Sanjay Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors decided on 29th January 2018. 2. W.P.6717 2018 came up first before this Court on 27th June 2018 when status quo with regard to service of the petitioner was ordered to be maintained. Finally the said petition was disposed of by a Bench comprising of us only by a judgement dated 8th December 2020 reasoning that the petitioner had been referred for third opinion seeking which the petition had been filed and thus the relief claimed in the petition stood satisfied. This petition has been filed though by wording the relief differently but otherwise finding faults with our judgement dated 8th December 2020 in the earlier petition bearing W.P. 6717 2018 preferred by the petitioner and seeking an order contrary thereto. Though we are honoured by the petitioner preferring this petition in the form of an appeal against our order before us only but are afraid in law the same amounts to re litigation and which has been held to be an abuse of the process of the Court. Reference in this regard may be made to K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi3 SCC 573 Sardar Estates Vs. Atma Ram Properties Private Limited6 SCC 609 and Chandra Gupt Vs. Bharat Gupt 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9510. The petitioner earlier found to be suffering from Alcohol Dependence Syndrome now appears to be suffering from Litigation Dependence Syndrome. However we have allowed the counsel for the petitioner to argue to his heart’s contents and he has in his arguments contended that the third medical opinion obtained by this Court as well as the status report filed in W.P.10853 2020 pursuance to our directions in the earlier petition is in favour of the Needless to state that both of them were considered by us while passing the judgement dated 8th December 2020. The counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice also states that the respondents before further proceeding against the petitioner if at all will take into consideration the medical opinion obtained under orders of this Court as well as the status report. In view of the aforesaid statement of the counsel for the respondents this petition does not lie. The petitioner earlier approached this court against the findings of the Medical Board without waiting for the administrative decision if any of the respondents to board out the petitioner from service and against which decision if any the petitioner would have had departmental remedies. By filing that petition and during the pendency of which there was an interim stay the petitioner deferred delayed the decision making if any by the respondents qua boarding out of the petitioner obviously to his own advantage. The petitioner by filing this petition is again attempting to delay decision making by the respondents thereby perpetuating his own continuance in service even if of no utility to the respondents. The petitioner cannot be permitted to frustrate the action if any liable to be taken against him in this manner and it is high time that such attempts are put to a stop. If we entertain this petition at this interim stage of the action if any to be taken by the respondents against the petitioner the same will again defer the decision if any to be taken against the petitioner. Interfering at the interim stage with the disciplinary proceeding has always been W.P.10853 2020 deprecated by the Supreme Court and this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in its discretion ought not to vest the petitioner with any advantage. The petitioner if any decision prejudicial to him is taken will have the departmental remedies available to him and if remains dissatisfied shall then have the right to invoke 10. There is no merit in the present petition. Article 226. 11. Dismissed. DECEMBER 22 2020 RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ASHA MENON W.P.10853 2020 