Latha Venkataraman vs Indian Renewable Energy ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 5489 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+     W.P.(C) 1035/2010

                                   Date of Decision :2nd December, 2010

      LATHA VENKATARAMAN                   ..... Petitioner
           Through  Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate

                     versus


      INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
      AGENCY LTD. & ANR.                     ..... Respondents
           Through   Dr. Sarabjit Sharma, Ms. Deepti Dogra,
                     Mr. Arvind Kumar Advs. for R-1.
                     Mr. Pankaj Batra, Adv. for UOI.


CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

1.    Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
      judgment? Yes
2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes


SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection with regard

to the maintainability of this petition on the principles of

constructive res judicata. Admittedly, WP(C) No.9385/2007,

seeking a similar relief, was filed before this Court which was

dismissed by an order dated 4th March, 2009 to the following effect:

"After some arguments counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition with liberty to challenge the final report of the Inquiry Officer if the same turns against the petitioner.

Reserving that liberty, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn."

WP(C) No.1035/2010 page 1

2. Counsel for the petitioner seeks to urge that the aforesaid

order does not amount to either res judicata or to constructive res

judicata and it is open to him to file the instant petition seeking the

same relief. Of course, there is no dispute that relief identical to the

one sought in WP(C) No.9385/2007 has been sought in this petition

also. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that since

there was no finding given on any of the reliefs sought by the

petitioner in WP(C) No.9385/2007, therefore, the dismissal of that

petition was not on merits, the principle of constructive res judicata

could not be invoked.

3. I do not agree. The aforesaid order dated 4 th March, 2009

states very clearly that it has been passed after the petitioner had

availed the opportunity of addressing arguments on merits in

support of the reliefs sought by him. Not only that, counsel for the

petitioner specifically sought permission to withdraw the petition,

with liberty to challenge only the final report of the Enquiry Officer.

Were it merely the case of a simple withdrawal without addressing

the Court on merits at all, there would have been no question of

counsel for the petitioner seeking any liberty whatsoever to raise

either the whole or part of the challenge in a fresh petition. The fact

that the counsel himself sought the liberty to raise only a limited

portion of the challenge afresh, shows clearly that he himself was of

the mind that any further challenge to the remaining reliefs would

not be open to him. It is obvious that counsel for the petitioner

decided to withdraw the petition once he felt that he was making no

headway. As regards the challenge to the final report of the Enquiry

Officer with regard to the Enquiry, which was still going on when the

WP(C) No.1035/2010 page 2 order dated 4th March, 2009 was passed in WP(C) No.9385/2007,

and for which liberty was granted to the petitioner, the petitioner

has already moved WP(C) No.13195/2009, which has been admitted

for hearing.

4. Furthermore, I also notice that after the order of 4th March,

2009 came to be passed in WP(C) No.9385/2007, the petitioner

moved a CM No.16124/2009 praying for revival of the petition,

particularly with regard to his challenge to the finding of the

Complaint Committee for prevention of sexual harassment dated

26th July, 2006 which is also, admittedly, the scope of the instant

challenge. That application was also withdrawn by the petitioner

after some arguments on 6th January, 2010 with liberty to file

another application, "with comprehensive facts". Admittedly, no

such application was filed thereafter. The very fact of filing the said

CM No.16124/2009 in WP(C) No.9385/2007 also demonstrates that

the petitioner was of the mind that his challenge, in terms of the

prayer sought in this petition, stands closed and it could not be

revived or re-agitated except with the leave of the Court. That

leave was never granted to the petitioner.

5. It would, therefore, not be appropriate for this Court to

entertain the same challenge once again in a fresh writ petition.

6. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

DECEMBER 02, 2010
dr




WP(C) No.1035/2010                                        page   3