Parmanand Lal vs Uoi, Through Secretary, ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 4426 Del

$~R-8
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                          W.P.(C) 3227/2006
%                                                             26.09.2013

PARMANAND LAL                                                ..... Petitioner
                           Through:      Petitioner in person

                           versus

UOI, THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS                       ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks relief of grant of Rs.50 lakhs as

damages as also another amount of Rs.10 lakhs as exemplary damages.

The prayer clause of the writ petition reads as under :

"A gracious writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to pay the petitioner damages of a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs only) towards mental agony, loss of earning capacity of petitioner's dependents and expenditure incurred even after final judgment and the loss in value of the amount due to delay with 12 percent interest from the date of filing this petition, OR, may pass any other order in the interest of equity and justice."

2. An entitlement to relief is when necessary ingredients of a cause of

action as required under law are pleaded and established. I have made my

best endeavour to understand what the writ petition is all about but I must

concede that I have failed to understand much. Only thing which I seem to

understand is that petitioner has a grievance against the Union of India/Ex-

employer on account of certain past litigations of promotion, and also that

orders of the Supreme Court in favour of the petitioner were not complied

with. Petitioner claims violation of his Fundamental Rights including

violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is alleged that

petitioner was very badly harassed by the Government and, therefore,

damages, as prayed for, should be awarded. I have failed to make any legal

sense of rest of the averments in the writ petition.

3. To understand the averments of the petition, it would be

necessary to refer to the response of the respondent in his counter-affidavit.

A reading of the counter-affidavit shows that petitioner was granted

promotion but that order was withdrawn, however, ultimately Supreme

Court granted relief to the petitioner. The Union of India thereafter restored

the position of the petitioner and granted the necessary monetary arrears. In

fact, interest was also granted though Supreme Court did not direct payment

of interest. Petitioner had applied by means of filing of applications in the

Supreme Court for higher interest on arrears but the Supreme Court

dismissed the applications I.A. Nos. 15/2001 and 12/1999 in case No.

4339/1995 vide order dated 20.8.2001.

4. The counter-affidavit also shows that various litigations have been

initiated by the petitioner, not only in this Court, but also before the

Supreme Court as also before the Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT) and

all of which were dismissed. These factual details are given in para 12 of

the counter-affidavit and they read as under:

"12. (i) The petitioner herein though mentioned 15 to 20 years old instances, but has not brought so called grievances till the year 2000. He filed petition No. 15259/2000 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding damage as stated by him in the petition under reply. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.4.2001, while dismissing the said petition, has ordered that if the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned decision of any authority, a fresh cause of action arises for which may move the appropriate forum.

(ii) The petitioner herein did not file any case for 2 ½ years in any forum after the above orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(iii) After 2 ½ years, he filed MA No. 98/2004 in OA No. 2646/1993 in November, 2003 before this Hon'ble Court but the same was only for promotion and payment of interest and not related to any damage as he stated in his present OA. Since

it was a fresh cause and said MA was dismissed on 1.3.2004 with a direction to file a fresh OA in accordance with law.

(iv) The petitioner herein did not file a fresh case before any Court of competent jurisdiction claiming damages, rather he sent a representation dated 30.8.2004 to Secretary, Department of Telecommunication regarding same issue which was disposed off on 16.11.2004.

(v) The petitioner filed the OA 761/2005 against the above order of DOT and the same was dismissed on 5.10.205.

(vi) The petitioner had also filed CP 177-178/2003 in CA No. 6485/98 but the same was dismissed on 17.10.2003. Hence, the claim of the petitioner for damage on the basis of order dated 26.4.2000 carry no weightage and as such his representation has been disposed off.

(vii) It is further submitted that the petitioner filed WP 7373/2006 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for regular appointment of the petitioner's son and daughter. The same petition was dismissed on 8.5.2006 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

He further filed LPA against the said order which was also dismissed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 30.5.2006.

(viii) Further the petitioner filed WP (C) 19244-45/2006 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi making his son as petitioner No. 1 for compassionate appointment. The same petitioner also dismissed on 18.1.2007.

(ix) From the above, it is evident that the petitioner herein is in habit of bringing new facts by attempting to mislead this Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner is habitual of raising such points on one pretext or the other in various Courts. The petition, thus, is misuse of process of law,

based on misconceived and misleading facts."

5. Therefore, this writ petition is barred on various grounds. First is the

ground of res judicata as whatever was to be granted in a litigation

pertaining to promotion could only have been granted before the Supreme

Court, and best because of delay in payment relief of a higher rate of interest

could be prayed and which relief is already declined to the petitioner by the

Supreme Court. Various reliefs claimed by the petitioner towards

appointment of his children on compassionate appointment have also been

dismissed by this Court. Petitioner had claimed damages by means of filing

OA before the CAT and that OA was also dismissed. Also, damages cannot

be claimed, that too of a huge amount of ` 60 lakhs, in a writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as court fees should

ordinarily be paid for a money decree. Petition does not lie because how the

petitioner is caused a loss of Rs.60 lakhs can only be established during trial

in a civil court.

6. Petitioner appears in person argues that the Union of India subjected

to him in 41 litigations and, therefore, he should be compensated. I have

failed to understand his argument because entitlement to compensation is

only as per existence of a legal right, that right has to be established and

damages have to be calculated by showing how the loss is caused. None of

these factors exist in the present case and, therefore, this writ petition has no

merits.

7. The present writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs of

Rs. 25,000/-. However, this costs of Rs. 25,000/- will not be payable today

but will be paid as a condition precedent for filing of any future litigation

which the petitioner may file with respect to any of the issues which has

already been decided whether by this Court or by the Supreme Court or by

the CAT or by today's judgment.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 godara