Prem Chand Gupta vs Uoi & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2306 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 LPA No.264 OF 2009 & C.M. No.8056 OF 2009

        PREM CHAND GUPTA                            ..... Appellant
                                   Through: Mr. K. Venkatraman,
                                            Advocate.

                                   versus

        UOI & ORS.                                  ..... Respondents
                                   Through: Mr. Chetan Chawla,
                                            Advocate for UOI/R-1 & 2.
                                            Mr. Vikas Pahwa with
                                            Mr. Biswajit Kumar Patra,
                                            standing counsel for CBI.
                                            Mr. Subhash Bansal, Senior
                                            standing counsel for R-4, 5.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL

                              ORDER

% 28.05.2009

1. The present appeal arises out of the order dated

21.4.2009 of the learned single judge. The brief factual matrix of the

matter is as follows :-

2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant (original

petitioner in the writ petition) seeking a direction to the respondents

(original respondents in the writ petition) particularly, the CBI, after

considering the relevant files prepared in 1992 based on his

complaints dated 13.5.1992 and 28.7.1992 regarding raids planned

against "Mahavir Metals" (a family concern of certain individuals,

whom the appellant terms as Jain Brothers). Apparently, the

appellant had worked with the said Jain Brothers as their

Accountant and he alleges that they were indulging in illegal

activities and were involved in smuggling and transacting in precious

metals without disclosing them in their books of accounts. It was

submitted on behalf of the appellant that his complaints motivated

the authorities to conduct a search and also plan a raid which was

later abandoned. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the

court in exercise of its judicial powers could look into the file and

ascertain why the raid was not conducted and thereafter issue

appropriate directions.

3. The learned single judge took note of the fact that the

appellant had approached this court on two earlier occasions. In

those proceedings too similar directions were sought for. Writ

Petition No.306 of 1995 earlier filed by the appellant was dismissed

by the learned single judge. The appeal against the said order was

dismissed by the Division Bench. The appellant attempted to get

further redressal through appeal by a Special Leave Petition which

met with similar fate. Thereafter, when the appellant again sought to

agitate the matter by filing a Writ Petition No.615 of 1998, the same

was rejected by the Division Bench.

4. The above facts would show that the appellant had

approached this court on two separate occasions. He had gone up to

the Supreme Court, raising the same grievance that he has in the

present case. The merits of his contentions were gone into

elaborately on both the occasions. The orders passed by this court in

the petitions of the appellant were determinative of the issue as to the

correctness or otherwise of the action of the respondents calling of

the raid. The learned single judge, thus, rightly concluded that the

appellant's persistence in insisting that the court should intervene

and issue directions to the CBI could not be entertained. Clearly, the

appellant is seeking to re-agitate the issues which have been already

concluded in two previous proceedings initiated by the appellant.

These determinations were conclusive and the appellant was bound

by them.

5. Accordingly the appeal must fail. The appeal is

dismissed. The application stands disposed of as well.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 28, 2009 'AA'