S.M. Matloob v. Union of India & Ors.

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. 2014:DHC:5709-DB

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’..