S.N.Singh vs R.K.Sinha & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 1441 Del

 *                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      Review Petition No.115 of 2010 & C.M. Appl. No.4656 of 2010 in
                                  Cont. Cas. (C) No.117 of 2010

%                                                                               15.03.2010

         S.N. SINGH                                                 ......Petitioner
                                         Through: Mr. V. Sudeer, Advocate.

                                             Versus

         R.K. SINHA & ORS.                                           ......Respondents
                                         Through: Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S.
                                                  Rupal & Mr. Jitender Khanna, Advocates.

                                                          Date of Reserve: 12th March, 2010
                                                           Date of Order: 15th March, 2010

         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

                                        JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed this review petition seeking review of order of this court

dated 22nd February, 2010.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court while passing order

dated 22nd February, 2010 had, in fact, varied and changed the directions given by the

Division Bench in its order dated 18th May, 2009.

3. I consider that this averment made by the petitioner is baseless. In order dated

18th May, 2009, the petitioner had given an assurance to the court that he will cooperate

with the inquiry and also assured the court that he would not issue any letter contrary to

existing rules and shall avoid all administrative controversies. Counsel for the

respondents had given assurance to the court that University will furnish the documents

asked for by the petitioner in its letter dated 8th May, 2009 as well as 24th April, 2009, if

not already supplied.

4. In the order dated 22nd February, 2010, this court observed the nature of

documents which were being asked by the petitioner from the respondent and found that

the petitioner cannot refuse to participate in the inquiry on the ground of non-supply of

the documents as given in annexure attached with the contempt petition and petitioner can

very well represent before the Inquiry Committee and Inquiry Committee can take

appropriate decision regarding supply of documents and which documents were relevant

and necessary for inquiry. This court did not vary or change the order passed by the

Division Bench.

5. This review petition seems to be another effort by the petitioner to impede the

inquiry which is now fixed for 22nd March, 2010. It has also been brought to my notice

by counsel for the respondents, who appeared on advance notice that the petitioner had

filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No.1093 of 2010 for similar relief before another

Bench of this court giving reference of the order dated 22nd February, 2010, which was

dismissed on 9th March, 2010. The petitioner had in his review petition not disclosed this

fact.

6. I consider that this review petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

The review petition is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/-.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.

MARCH 15, 2010 'AA'