Delhi High Court
I.K. Saini vs The Delhi Police And Ors on 2 December, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 2nd December, 2015
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 5654/2014
I.K. SAINI ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
THE DELHI POLICE AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. Nos.8458-8459/2015
1. These are two applications filed by the Petitioner, I.K Saini for
modification of the order dated 04.12.2014 by which the present
writ petition was dismissed as being misconceived.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner had filed this
writ petition seeking registration of an FIR and police investigation
with regard to the alleged illegal disconnection of his water
connection by Delhi Jal Board in respect of his ancestral house i.e.
A-70, NDSE-II, New Delhi. The petitioner had also sought a
direction to Central Information Commission to constitute a larger
bench for the cases filed by him and to impose appropriate
penalties on respondent Delhi Jal Board and Delhi Police
authorities under Section 20 (1) or Section 20 (2) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005.
3. While dismissing the instant writ petition on 04.12.2014, it was
observed by this Court that the petitioner has not availed the
alternative remedy of approaching the Superintendent of Police
under Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C, 1973 or the concerned Metropolitan
Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, 1973 as per the
Judgement of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P &
Others; AIR 2008 SC 907 and therefore direction to police for
registration of FIR cannot be issued.
4. It was also observed that the High court cannot issue any direction
to Central Information Commission or Chief Information
Commissioner since High Court is not vested with such power and
therefore the instant writ petition is not maintainable.
5. Now the petitioner has again filed these two applications seeking
modification of order of dismissal wherein he has reiterated the
facts mentioned in his writ petition and has again sought certain
directions against respondents Delhi Jal Board and Police
Authorities regarding his ongoing cases.
6. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that these applications are in
substance review applications filed under the garb of modification
since they raise similar issues on which the writ petition was
dismissed and relief was denied to the petitioner since he had
alternate remedies available to him. Such a practice has been
criticized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases and
most recently in Ram Jethmalani and Ors. vs. Union of India
(UOI) and Ors;(2011) 9 SCC 751 wherein while discussing Order
XL Rule 3 of the Supreme Court rules, it was observed in Para 31
that the Court should not permit hearing of such an application for
"clarification", "modification" or "recall" if the application is in
substance one for review. It was also observed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court that this method is adopted in order to bypass the
normal procedure of listing of application and to avoid open
hearing of the same.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the present
applications cannot be entertained in order to keep a dismissed writ
petition alive and by now granting a relief which was refused in
main petition, since it is settled law that what cannot be done
directly, cannot also be done indirectly. Therefore, both these
applications are accordingly dismissed as they have no merit.
V.K. SHALI, J.
DECEMBER 02, 2015
LT
