Abuse of the process of court cannot be permitted, the court observed that the Petitioner’s contention have earlier been considered in the previous order and the current petition would again lead to investigation of the similar facts which cannot be permitted. Hence the division bench refused to entertain re-litigation of the same issue. The Delhi High Court presided over by J. R. Sahai & J. A. Menon laid down this ratio in the case of H.C. Ram Naresh Vs. Union of India, [W.P.(C) 10853/2020].
The facts of the case are that a Petitioner filed a petition before the Court seeking directions from the court to the Indo-Tibetan border police for consideration of a third medical report apart from apart from earlier medical reports of the medical board and appeal medical board of the ITPB which diagnosed the petitioner with alcohol dependence syndrome. The petition was considered by the Delhi high court which granted the relief to the petitioner; however, the petitioner filed another writ petition before the court regarding the same issue.
The court heard the petitioner’s argument but observed that it had already considered the contentions in the previous petition. The respondents submitted before the court that they would comply with the previous court orders and consider the third medical report before taking any steps against the petitioner regarding the disciplinary proceedings.
The Division bench of the Court observed that the new writ petition filed has sought similar relief finding flaws in the previous order. The Court was of the opinion that if such re-litigation is permitted it would be an abuse to the process of law. The Court further stated that, “The petitioner, earlier found to be suffering from Alcohol Dependence Syndrome, now appears to be suffering from Litigation Dependence Syndrome.”
The Court further stated that, “The petitioner cannot be permitted to frustrate the action if any, liable to be taken against him, in this manner and it is high time that such attempts are put to a stop. If we entertain this petition at this interim stage of the action, if any, to be taken by the respondents against the petitioner, the same will again defer the decision, if any, to be taken against the petitioner.”
Lastly, the court refused from interfering in any proceedings and provide an advantage to the petitioner. The Court directed the Petitioner that if any proceedings were prejudicial then he would have departmental remedies available to him and if he further remains dissatisfied he can approach the court again under Article 226 of the Constitution.
