LPA 302/2010 Page 1 of 3 29 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + L.P.A.302/2010 LT. COL. B.M.K. KHOSLA ..... Appellant Through:Mr. Surinder Anand, Advocate versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Advocate with Mr. Chetan Lokur, Advocate. % Date of Decision: 12th July, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (ORAL) 1. Present Letters Patent appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 01st February, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge by virtue of which he disposed of appellant’s application being CM No. 1335/2010. LPA 302/2010 Page 2 of 3 2. Mr. Surinder Anand, learned counsel for appellant submitted that in view of the earlier order dated 24th August, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the appellant’s writ petition giving liberty to the appellant to approach the Court after making a representation/complaint to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court, the learned Single Judge could not have disposed of the aforesaid application in the manner he did. Learned counsel for appellant further submitted that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that a fraud had been committed as judicial file of CS(OS) 2520/1996 had been tampered with by some mischievous person for vested interest. 3. However, upon perusal of the impugned order, we find that learned Single Judge has only directed the appellant to raise his grievance before the learned Judge before whom the aforesaid Civil suit is said to be pending. It has further been directed in the impugned order that the report of the Registrar General with regard to enquiry conducted by him on the appellant’s representation would be considered by the said learned Judge before whom the aforesaid Civil suit is said to be pending. 4. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is fair and meets the ends of justice inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has directed the allegation of tampering made by the appellant to be considered by the same Judge on the Original Side in whose file the tampering is LPA 302/2010 Page 3 of 3 alleged to have taken place. In any event, if the appellant wants to dispute the finding of the Registrar General, the same cannot be done in a writ proceeding. 5. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the order of learned Single Judge calls for no interference. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed but with no orders as to costs. MANMOHAN, J CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 12, 2010 js