Lt. Col. B.M.K. Khosla vs The Registrar General,High Court ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 3212 Del

                                                                                 29
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+      L.P.A.302/2010


LT. COL. B.M.K. KHOSLA                     ..... Appellant
                    Through:Mr. Surinder Anand, Advocate

                       versus


THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS.                ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Advocate with
                           Mr. Chetan Lokur, Advocate.


%                                           Date of Decision: 12th July, 2010


CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

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



                                JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J (ORAL)

1. Present Letters Patent appeal has been filed challenging the order

dated 01st February, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge by virtue

of which he disposed of appellant's application being CM No.

1335/2010.

2. Mr. Surinder Anand, learned counsel for appellant submitted

that in view of the earlier order dated 24 th August, 2009 passed by the

learned Single Judge disposing of the appellant's writ petition giving

liberty to the appellant to approach the Court after making a

representation/complaint to the Registrar General of the Delhi High

Court, the learned Single Judge could not have disposed of the

aforesaid application in the manner he did. Learned counsel for

appellant further submitted that learned Single Judge failed to

appreciate that a fraud had been committed as judicial file of CS(OS)

2520/1996 had been tampered with by some mischievous person for

vested interest.

3. However, upon perusal of the impugned order, we find that

learned Single Judge has only directed the appellant to raise his

grievance before the learned Judge before whom the aforesaid Civil

suit is said to be pending. It has further been directed in the impugned

order that the report of the Registrar General with regard to enquiry

conducted by him on the appellant's representation would be

considered by the said learned Judge before whom the aforesaid Civil

suit is said to be pending.

4. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is fair and meets

the ends of justice inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has directed

the allegation of tampering made by the appellant to be considered by

the same Judge on the Original Side in whose file the tampering is

alleged to have taken place. In any event, if the appellant wants to

dispute the finding of the Registrar General, the same cannot be done

in a writ proceeding.

5. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the order of learned

Single Judge calls for no interference. Accordingly, the present appeal

is dismissed but with no orders as to costs.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE

JULY 12, 2010 js