The Delhi high court while considering a writ petition observed that the petitioner’s contentions were considered in the previous order and the current petition amounted to re-litigation after which the court refused to entertain such pleadings and remarked that such actions amounted to ‘abuse of the process of the court’.
The petitioner had previously filed a petition before the court seeking directions from the court to the ITBP (Indo-Tibetian border police) for consideration of a third medical report 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 divisional bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Asha Menon observed that the new writ petition filed had sought similar relief finding flaws in the previous order. The court opined that the petition amounted to re-litigation and the same would be held as abuse of the process of the court. The court commented on the issue that “The petitioner, earlier found to be suffering from Alcohol Dependence Syndrome, now appears to be suffering from Litigation Dependence Syndrome.”
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 court noted that the petitioner had filed the previous petition to delay the proceedings against him by the respondents and opined that the petitioner again filed the new petition for the same purpose. The court came down harshly on the petitioner’s attempts to delay the decision making by the respondents and remarked “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.”
The court denied to further interfere in the disciplinary proceedings at an interim stage and refused to give any advantage to the petitioner before the departmental proceedings. However, while dismissing the petition, the court added that in case the proceedings were prejudicial to the petitioner, he would have departmental remedies available to him but if he further remains dissatisfied, he may approach the court again revoking article 226.
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :