WRIT PETITION 5654/2014

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Decided on: 2[nd] December, 2015

+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 5654/2014

I.K. SAINI

Through:

..... Petitioner

Petitioner in person.

versus

THE DELHI POLICE AND ORS

Through: Nemo.

..... Respondents

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. 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 direction to Central Information Commission to constitute 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 907and 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. Commissioner since High Court is not vested with such power and therefore the instant writ petition is not maintainable.

W.P.(C) No.5654/2014 Page 2 of 4

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. 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 practice has been criticized by Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of cases and most recently in Ram Jethmalani and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors;(2011) 9 SCC 751wherein 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 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 practice has been criticized by Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of cases and most recently in Ram Jethmalani and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors;(2011) 9 SCC 751wherein 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. 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 dismissed writ petition alive and by now granting 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. applications cannot be entertained in order to keep dismissed writ petition alive and by now granting 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.

DECEMBER 02, 2015 LT

V.K. SHALI, J.