PADAM EXPORTS ..... Petitioner in person. v. UNION OF INDIA .....

1. I have heard the petitioner who appears in person at length. This is the second occasion when the petitioner has approached the Delhi High Court. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in 1998 claiming compensation of Rs.98,35,878/- with interest for failure of the respondentauthorities to issue value based advance licences in terms of Export and Import Policy for the year 1993-94. This Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the Order was upheld in LPA No. 187/2002. The Division Bench noticed that the petitioner had alleged delay in processing of his applications for issue of export licences and alleged resultant loss. It was held that the writ jurisdiction was not correctly invoked and the controversy raised could be appropriately resolved in a regular suit.

2. The petitioner thereafter filed a review application which was 2009:DHC:2748 CCP NO.583/2009 Page 2 dismissed and a Special Leave Petition against the said orders passed by the Division Bench. Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

3. The petitioner has filed a suit for recovery before the High Court of Bombay. It appears that the petitioner has been making number of applications for notice of motion in the said suit and on being unsuccessful and faced with an adverse order had filed appeals. Respondents in the counter affidavit have set out in detail, orders passed by the Bombay High Court. They have also enclosed copy of order dated 6th July, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petitioner’s application for interim compensation/damages.

4. In one of the appeals filed before the Bombay High Court by the petitioner, the Division Bench was pleased to observe in Order dated 5th May, 2006: “1. Heard Appellant No.2 in person and the learned counsel for the Respondents.

2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant an opportunity to Appellant No.2 to approach the Respondents to resolve the entire controversy in a fair manner. Accordingly liberty is granted.

3. If such an application is made by Appellant No.2, the Respondents to decide the case as expeditiously as possible.”

5. The petitioner thereafter moved representation dated 12th June, CCP NO.583/2009 Page 3 2006 stating as under: “ I am enclosing herewith a SYNOPSIS, chronology of important events in Suit No.145 of 2003, points to be urged and citations to be relied on for your kind information and ready reference, for doing the needful at the earliest. You shall appreciate that during last twelve years to demand justice, my whole business career and life has been totally ruined and I have suffered a lot physically, mentally and monetarily and keeping in mind all these aspects, my entire claim shall be settled sympathetically and entire controversy be resolved fairly and amicably to my entire satisfaction expeditiously in the interest of justice and oblige.”

6. The said representation has been disposed of by a speaking order dated 25th July, 2006 quoting relevant provisions of export and import policy as then applicable. The petitioner also made a representation to the Grievance Redressal Committee but the same was rejected. In a nutshell the stand of the petitioner is that he should be granted compensation for the failure of the respondent authorities to issue advance licences. As stated above, the question whether writ jurisdiction should be permitted to be invoked is already covered by the decision of the Division Bench dated 25th February, 2002 in LPA No. 127/2002. The petitioner has filed a civil suit for recovery of damages before the Bombay High Court. Order dated 5th May, 2006 passed by the Division Bench quoted above in the said suit does not permit and allow the petitioner to start another round of litigation in a writ to claim damages. The representation made and its CCP NO.583/2009 Page 4 rejection in the present case, do not furnish a fresh cause of action, independent of the civil suit.

7. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Applications filed by the petitioner are also dismissed.

8. Petitioner in the Contempt Petition No.583/2009 alleges noncompliance of Order dated 5th May, 2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. In case the petitioner feels that there is noncompliance of the Order dated 5th May, 2006 passed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, he is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings before the said Court. This Court has not specifically examined whether there is non-compliance of the order dated 5th May, 2006.

9. Otherwise the petitioner has made sweeping and general allegations against the respondent-Union of India on the ground that his human rights and Fundamental Rights have been violated by failure to issue import licence in the year 1993-94. I do not see any reason to initiate contempt proceedings on the basis of the said general, vague and sweeping allegations.

10. With the aforesaid observation, the Contempt Petition is also disposed of.

SANJIV KHANNA, J. JULY 17, 2009. P/VKR