Delhi High Court - Orders
Rajender Mittal vs Union Of India & Anr on 2 December, 2020
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1997/2020 & CRL.M.A. 16664/2020
RAJENDER MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Mr. Asim
Naeem, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. RS Kundu, ASC for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 02.12.2020 (through video conferencing) CRL.M.A. 16664/2020 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(CRL) 1997/2020 Initial submissions have been made qua the prayer seeking release of the petitioner from the prison forthwith and declaration that the sentence of 182 years as imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 17.02.1998 of the District Consumer Forum, THC under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is null and void. Initial submissions have been made in relation to the said aspect as well as in relation to the submissions made that despite an order dated 06.12.2010 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No.16525-16526/2010 dismissing the Special Leave Petition to the effect that despite the same, the present petition would be maintainable in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:03.12.2020 16:41:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
Others (1986) 4 SCC 146 with specific reference and reliance on observations in para 6 of the said verdict, which reads to the effect:
"We are clearly of opinion that the view taken by the High Court was not right and that the High Court should have gone into the merits of the writ petition without dismissing it on the preliminary ground. As observed by this Court in Workmen of Cochin Port Trust v. Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust and Another, [1978] 3 S.C.C. 119 the effect of a non-speaking order of dismissal of a special leave petition without anything more indicating the grounds or reasons of its dismissal must, by necessary implication, be taken to be that this Court had decided only that it was not a fit case where special leave should be granted. This conclusion may have been reached by this Court due to several reasons. When the order passed by this Court was not a speaking one, it is not correct to assume that this Court had necessarily decided implicitly all the questions in relation to the merits of the award, which was under challenge before this Court in the special leave petition. A writ proceeding is a wholly different and distinct proceeding. Questions which can be said to have been decided by this Court expressly, implicitly or even constructively while dismissing the special leave petition cannot, of course, be re-opened in a subsequent writ proceeding before the High Court. But neither on the principle of res judicata nor on any principle of public policy analogous thereto, would the order of this Court dismissing the special leave petition operate to bar the trial of identical issues in a separate proceeding namely, the writ proceeding before the High Court merely on the basis of an uncertain assumption that the issue must have been decided by this Court at least by implication. It is not correct or safe to extend the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata to such an extent so as to found it on mere guesswork."
submitting to the effect that vide the order dated 06.12.2010 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in as much as the petitions assailing the impugned judgment and order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:03.12.2020 16:41:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
dismissed in limine without any speaking order, the present petition would be maintainable.
Without any observations on the said aspect it is essential to observe that the present petition has been filed with much delay having been filed in the year 2020 despite the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove being of the date 06.12.2010. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that an affidavit explaining the circumstances for the delay in filing the petition would be filed, the same, if any, be filed within a week.
The matter be renotified thereafter on 06.01.2021.
ANU MALHOTRA, J DECEMBER 2, 2020 vm Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:03.12.2020 16:41:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.