Dr.A.K.Belwal vs Union Of India & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2208 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               WP(C) No.2792/2010

%                          Date of Decision: 27.04.2010

Dr.A.K.Belwal                                                  .... Petitioner
                        Through Dr.A.K.Belwal, Petitioner in person.

                                      Versus

Union of India & Ors.                                          Respondents
                  Through         Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj & Mr.M.P.Singh,
                                  Advocates for the respondent No.1/UOI.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be                  YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                     NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported                    NO
       in the Digest?



ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking quashing of a letter written by Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, Senior Central

Government Counsel addressed to Ms.Mala Dutt, Director, IES Cadre,

Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic

Affairs, IES Division, North Block, New Delhi dated 1st August, 2005 on

the ground that the Director, IES Cadre, Ms. Mala Dutt, was intimated

that the High Court has orally told the learned counsel,

Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, that in terms of the earlier order of the High Court,

the period needed to be regularized in accordance with law and it is not

necessary to treat the period as spent on duty or even dies non and

consequently, department should finalize the departmental enquiry and

immediately take a final decision. The letter also stipulated that the

communication by the counsel is the privileged document and is not

admissible as document in any proceedings by petitioner or any body

else.

The petitioner contends that no court says anything orally.

According to him no Court gives any oral direction and consequently,

the intimation by the learned counsel, Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj to the Director,

(IES Cadre) is incorrect.

On perusal of the record, it is revealed that the petitioner had

filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.10978 of 2005 wherein by order

dated 8th July, 2005, it was held by an interim order that since the

petitioner had joined at Shimla, after his joining necessary orders for

regularization of his services for the period of his absence be passed in

accordance with law, and the order in this regard be also placed on

record. The said writ petition, however, was dismissed by order dated

22nd September, 2005 because the petitioner in the meanwhile had

retired. The relevant portion of the order dated 22nd September, 2005 is

as under:-

"We have heard the petitioner, who appears in person.

The petitioner challenged his order of transfer before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. The Original Application filed by the petitioner was disposed of by order dated 6th May, 2004 directing the petitioner to submit a representation which was to be considered and disposed of by reasoned and speaking order.

Pursuant to the said order representation was filed which was considered and disposed of. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the miscellaneous application being M.A.No.1287 of 2004 before the learned Tribunal in the said Original Application No.1114 of 2004, which was considered and it was held by the learned Tribunal that the application had no merit and the same was dismissed.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The subject matter of the Original Application as also the present petition is the order of transfer, which was passed by the respondent transferring the petitioner as Director, Labour Bureau, Shimla. Subsequent to the orders passed and during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner has carried out the orders of transfer and joined at Shimla from which office he now stands retired from service. Therefore, nothing survives in the present writ petition. The order of transfer is only of academic interest.

The petition standing disposed of accordingly."

Being aggrieved by the order dated 22nd September, 2005, the

petitioner had filed a review petition, which was also dismissed by order

dated 4th April, 2004 in R.A.No.129 of 2008 holding that the order of the

transfer was carried out, and the petitioner had joined as Director,

Labour Bureau, Shimla, and thereafter retired from service, and

therefore, nothing survives in the writ petition and the order of transfer

is of academic interest only. In the circumstances, the Court declined to

either review or modify any of the order passed in the writ petition.

The petitioner was not satisfied even with this and filed a

contempt petition being CONT. CASE (C) No.106 of 2010 seeking that

contemptuous notes/letters may be quashed and set aside in the

interest of justice and all the subsequent action taken on the basis of

alleged contemptuous notes/letters. The petitioner also sought

initiation of contempt proceedings against Ms.Mala Dutt, the Former

Director, IES Cadre and Sh.A.K.Bhardwaj, Senior Central Government

Counsel for deliberately and willfully disobeying the order of the High

Court.

The application for taking contempt action against

Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent, and Ms.Mala

Dutt, the Former Director, IES Cadre was also dismissed by this Court

by the order dated 18th February, 2010.

The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, has

pointed out and produced a copy of another contempt petition filed by

the petitioner being Contempt Petition No.163 of 2010 against Ms.Mala

Dutt, the Former Director, IES Cadre and respondents which was also

dismissed by the order dated 16th March, 2010 reiterating the pleas and

contentions on the basis of which earlier contempt petitions were

dismissed.

Now, the petitioner has again challenged the same

communication by the present writ petition. The communications

between the counsel and his client are the privileges and whatsoever is

communicated by the respondent‟s counsel to the respondents cannot

be raised or impugned by the petitioner by filing this writ petition. The

contempt petition of the petitioner has been dismissed. In any case the

communication between the respondents and their counsel cannot be

quashed or set aside as has been sought by the petitioner.

In the circumstances, the present writ petition is devoid of any

merit, and is a sheer abuse of process of law and is liable to be

dismissed with cost. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with a

cost of Rs.20,000/- payable to the respondents. Cost be paid to the

respondents‟ counsel within two weeks.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

APRIL 27, 2010                                 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
„VK‟