W.P.(C) No.1849/2010 Page 1 of 5 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 13th December, 2010. + W.P.(C) No.1849/2010 & CM No.3670/2010 (for Stay) & CM No.21361/2010 (for amendment of petition) % KASHMIRI LAL ..... PETITIONER Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Mr. Sumit Gupta & Mr. Kapil, Advocates. Versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER OF DELHI & ORS ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta with Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocates for R- 1 to 5. Mr. Sanjay Poddar & Mr. D.S. Patial, Advocates for R-7 to 13. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The petition impugns the order dated 26th December, 2008 of the Financial Commissioner, Delhi in a revision petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 preferred by one Smt. Dharam Devi. 2. Smt. Dharam Devi had filed W.P.(C) No.11117/2009 in this Court challenging the said order. The said writ petition was dismissed in limine on W.P.(C) No.1849/2010 Page 2 of 5 9th November, 2010. 3. This writ petition was filed after the writ petition filed by Smt. Dharam Devi. No notice of this writ petition was issued and this writ petition was simply being adjourned from time to time along with the writ petition preferred by Smt. Dharam Devi. This writ petition was listed before this Court on 9th November, 2010 also when the writ petition of Smt. Dharam Devi was heard and dismissed. However the petitioner herein appearing in person on that date stated that his counsel was not available. In the circumstances, this writ petition was adjourned to the next day i.e. 10th November, 2010 when again adjournment was sought and finally the counsel for the petitioner has been heard today. 4. Though the counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order on merits and also cited following judgments:- (i) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Abdul Khuddus (Dead) by LRs. (2007) 15 SCC 261. (ii) Sumathi P. Rai Vs. Isac D’Almeida (2004) 13 SCC 524. (iii) Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Virendra Kumar Jayantibhai Patel AIR 1997 SC 3002. (iv) B.K. Muniraju Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2008 SC 1438. however need is not felt to go into the matter on merits inasmuch as the counsel for the respondents no.7 to 13 has contended that the interest of the petitioner and the case of the petitioner is the same as of that of Smt. Dharam Devi and the present writ petition was filed when notice of the writ W.P.(C) No.1849/2010 Page 3 of 5 petition filed by Smt. Dharam Devi was not being issued inspite of the same having been listed several times. It is contended that the present writ petition is an abuse of the process of this Court and amounts to re-litigation. Reliance is placed on Mahant Surinder Nath Vs. Union of India 2008 (146) DLT 438. 6. It emerges that the petitioner had preferred his separate Revision Petition to the Financial Commissioner, the Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner and the Revision Petition preferred by Smt. Dharam Devi were earlier heard together by the Financial Commissioner and dismissed vide order dated 23rd April, 2002. The petitioner was satisfied with the order dated 23rd April, 2002 and did not challenge the same. Only Smt. Dharam Devi challenged the order dated 23rd April, 2002 of dismissal of her Revision Petition by preferring W.P.(C) No.3650/2002 in this Court which was disposed of vide judgment dated 3rd September, 2004 and the matter remanded to the Financial Commissioner. The order dated 26th December, 2008 impugned by the petitioner in this writ petition is the order in the said remand proceedings in the Revision Petition of Smt. Dharam Devi only. It is urged that the petitioner having accepted the order dated 23rd April, 2002 and having not challenged the same is now not entitled to challenge the order which came to be made on remand in the revision petition of Smt. Dharam Devi only. 7. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner was a party to the W.P.(C) No.3650/2002 earlier filed by Smt. W.P.(C) No.1849/2010 Page 4 of 5 Dharam Devi. The answer is in the negative. The counsel for the petitioner has however contended that since on remand pursuant to the order in the writ petition filed by Smt. Dharam Devi, the petitioner also participated before the Financial Commissioner and the petitioner is also affected by the order dated 26th December, 2008, he has a right to challenge the same. 8. Though undoubtedly in the order dated 26th December, 2008 the presence of the petitioner and his Advocate is noted but the said order is only in the Revision Petition preferred by Smt. Dharam Devi. On the contrary the earlier order dated 23rd April, 2002 of the Financial Commissioner was on the Revision Petitions preferred by both, Smt. Dharam Devi as well as the petitioner. The petitioner herein was not even a party in the Writ Petition preferred by Smt. Dharam Devi. 9. The petitioner has no locus to challenge the order in the Revision Petition of Smt. Dharam Devi and to which he was not a party and especially when the petitioner though having earlier preferred a revision petition and which was dismissed on 23rd April, 2002, chose not to pursue the matter further. Though the counsel for the petitioner is correct in contending that had Smt. Dharam Devi on remand succeeded in the revision petition, the petitioner would also have benefited therefrom but the petitioner having given up the proceedings after the dismissal of his Revision Petition on 23rd April, 2002, allowed his fate to be linked to that of Smt. Dharam Devi and lost any independent right. Since the petitioner would have been the beneficiary in the event of the revision petition of Smt. W.P.(C) No.1849/2010 Page 5 of 5 Dharam Devi being allowed on remand, the petitioner may have also had a right to oppose the writ petition if any filed by the respondents no.7 to 13. However, he cannot have an independent right of challenging the order in a revision petition preferred by somebody else and to which he was not a party. 10. I am thus of the opinion that the petitioner has no locus to maintain the present writ petition and the same is liable to be rejected on that ground also. Even otherwise though the counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter on merits also but has been unable to make any dent on the reasoning given in the order dated 9th November, 2010 dismissing the Writ Petition of Smt. Dharam Devi. 11. The Writ Petition is dismissed in limine. I refrain from imposing any costs on the petitioner though find merit in the argument of the same being in abuse of the process of the Court. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 13th December, 2010 bs (Corrected and released on 20th December, 2010)