Durga Prasad Kar vs Union Of India And Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 7180 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+    W.P.(C) 9402/2014 and CM APPL 21243-21244/2014

                                               Decided on: 24.12.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:

DURGA PRASAD KAR                                   ..... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Advocate with
                        Ms. Anupama Sharma and Mr. Niraj Kumar
                        Jha, Advocates

                        versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                           ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with
                    Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC and Ms. Pallavi
                    Shali and Mr. Ajay Kalra, Advocates

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI


HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who claims

that he has no personal stake in the matter and "is a public spirited

person in the position of relator", praying inter alia for quashing the

order dated 03.11.2014 passed by the Government of India,

whereunder the respondent No.2 has been appointed to the post of

Chairperson, CBDT.

2. At the outset, it has been enquired from learned counsel for the

petitioner that if the petitioner, who was serving as an IRS officer till

he had superannuated in the year 2009, is of the opinion that the

appointment of the respondent No.2 to the post of Chairperson, CBDT

is liable to be quashed and set aside for valid reasons, then why has

he not sought issuance of a writ of quo warranto in respect of the said

appointment. Further, it has been enquired from learned counsel that

if it is the petitioner's stand that he does not have any personal

interest in the matter and is taking up a public cause, being a public

spirited person, then why has he not elected to file a public interest

petition.

3. After addressing arguments for some time, learned counsel for

the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present petition while

reserving the right of the petitioner to take appropriate legal recourse

in accordance with law.

4. At this stage, Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned ASG states that the

petitioner is nothing but a proxy litigant for one Shri S.K. Srivastava,

who has filed a series of criminal cases in the Noida Courts, UP,

before the Central Administrative Tribunal and in this Court, seeking

several reliefs against the respondent No.2. He states that the counsel

appearing for Shri S.K. Srivastava is the very same counsel, who has

filed the present petition and the orders passed in the petition filed by

Shri S.K. Srivastava are being relied upon by the petitioner herein and

are enclosed with the present petition, which only goes to show that

the petitioner is in cahoots with the aforesaid gentleman, who has

been specifically debarred by the Supreme Court from filing any civil

or criminal case or complaint before any court or authority without the

explicit permission from the said Court in terms of the order dated

08.12.2014 passed in W.P.(C) 1010/2014 entitled Shumana Sen

and Anr. Vs. S.K. Srivastava and Anr.

5. The aforesaid submission is disputed by learned counsel for the

petitioner.

6. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has sought leave to

withdraw the present petition, this Court refrains from making any

observations on the merits of the case, but reserves the right of the

respondent No.2 to take all the pleas in opposition as may be

available to it at the appropriate stage.

7. Leave, as prayed for by the petitioner, is granted. The petition

is dismissed as withdrawn alongwith the pending applications. As and

when the petitioner files a fresh petition, the same shall be considered

in accordance with law.

                                                    (HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 24, 2014                                      JUDGE
rkb