S.M. Matloob vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 5508 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      WP(C) No.2463/2006
       S.M. MATLOOB                                ..... Petitioner/ Applicant
                       Through:        Petitioner in person.
                                    Versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              ..... Respondents
                     Through:          Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Ms. Rajul
                                       Jain, Adv. for UOI.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                        ORDER

% 05.11.2014 CM No.16228/2014 (of the petitioner u/S 151 CPC)

1. The aforesaid writ petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

with allegations of corruption prevailing in the Indian Council for Cultural

Relations (ICCR).

2. The petition was disposed of vide order dated 5th July, 2006 noting that

the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was investigating and inquiring into

the allegations and by directing the CBI to continue the investigation and

inquiry and bring the same to a logical conclusion and by further directing that

on conclusion of investigation, necessary action in terms of findings be taken

by the competent authority. Liberty was also given to the petitioner to, if had

any further grievance, approach the CBI.

3. After the disposal of the writ petition, CM No.6044/2007 was filed by

the petitioner averring that the CBI was conducting a slow-paced investigation

and that taking advantage of the same, one of the main accused being the

former Director, Publication Division of ICCR was leaving the country and

seeking a direction to the CBI to complete the investigation within a time

bound manner. The said application was however dismissed vide order dated

2nd May, 2007.

4. Now this application has been filed by the petitioner, pleading, i) that an

FIR dated 14th October, 2011 under Sections 420/467/468 & 471 IPC has been

registered by the CBI and the accused has been charged-sheeted and the case is

pending before the concerned Court; ii) that the petitioner / applicant is the

President of the ICCR Staff Association (Regd.) and is being victimized; iii)

that superannuation of the petitioner / applicant is due in May, 2015; iv) that the

petitioner / applicant has been victimized by the ICCR by transferring him from

Delhi to Patna; and, v) that the petitioner / applicant has not been paid salary.

The petitioner / applicant by this application claims the relief of protection

under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2011 and a direction to the

respondent ICCR to file the Action Taken Report on the subsequent complaints

filed by the petitioner / applicant.

5. We heard the petitioner appearing in person on 15th October, 2014 and

reserved order.

6. The application, to say the least, is misconceived. The reliefs claimed in

the application are based on events of a date subsequent to the disposal of the

writ petition and have no bearing to the petition as originally filed. No such

reliefs can be granted in a disposed of petition.

7. The application is therefore dismissed with liberty to the petitioner /

applicant to, if entitled to on the grievance raised in the application, seek

appropriate relief. We refrain from imposing any costs on the petitioner /

applicant.

CHIEF JUSTICE

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J NOVEMBER 5, 2014 'gsr'..