W.P. (C) No.2792/2010 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2792/2010 % Date of Decision: 27.04.2010 Dr.A.K.Belwal …. Petitioner Through Dr.A.K.Belwal, Petitioner in person. Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents Through Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj & Mr.M.P.Singh, Advocates for the respondent No.1/UOI. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of a letter written by Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, Senior Central Government Counsel addressed to Ms.Mala Dutt, Director, IES Cadre, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, IES Division, North Block, New Delhi dated 1st August, 2005 on the ground that the Director, IES Cadre, Ms. Mala Dutt, was intimated that the High Court has orally told the learned counsel, Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, that in terms of the earlier order of the High Court, the period needed to be regularized in accordance with law and it is not W.P. (C) No.2792/2010 Page 2 of 5 necessary to treat the period as spent on duty or even dies non and consequently, department should finalize the departmental enquiry and immediately take a final decision. The letter also stipulated that the communication by the counsel is the privileged document and is not admissible as document in any proceedings by petitioner or any body else. The petitioner contends that no court says anything orally. According to him no Court gives any oral direction and consequently, the intimation by the learned counsel, Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj to the Director, (IES Cadre) is incorrect. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.10978 of 2005 wherein by order dated 8th July, 2005, it was held by an interim order that since the petitioner had joined at Shimla, after his joining necessary orders for regularization of his services for the period of his absence be passed in accordance with law, and the order in this regard be also placed on record. The said writ petition, however, was dismissed by order dated 22nd September, 2005 because the petitioner in the meanwhile had retired. The relevant portion of the order dated 22nd September, 2005 is as under:- “We have heard the petitioner, who appears in person. W.P. (C) No.2792/2010 Page 3 of 5 The petitioner challenged his order of transfer before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. The Original Application filed by the petitioner was disposed of by order dated 6th May, 2004 directing the petitioner to submit a representation which was to be considered and disposed of by reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant to the said order representation was filed which was considered and disposed of. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the miscellaneous application being M.A.No.1287 of 2004 before the learned Tribunal in the said Original Application No.1114 of 2004, which was considered and it was held by the learned Tribunal that the application had no merit and the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The subject matter of the Original Application as also the present petition is the order of transfer, which was passed by the respondent transferring the petitioner as Director, Labour Bureau, Shimla. Subsequent to the orders passed and during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner has carried out the orders of transfer and joined at Shimla from which office he now stands retired from service. Therefore, nothing survives in the present writ petition. The order of transfer is only of academic interest. The petition standing disposed of accordingly.” Being aggrieved by the order dated 22nd September, 2005, the petitioner had filed a review petition, which was also dismissed by order dated 4th April, 2004 in R.A.No.129 of 2008 holding that the order of the transfer was carried out, and the petitioner had joined as Director, Labour Bureau, Shimla, and thereafter retired from service, and therefore, nothing survives in the writ petition and the order of transfer is of academic interest only. In the circumstances, the Court declined to either review or modify any of the order passed in the writ petition. W.P. (C) No.2792/2010 Page 4 of 5 The petitioner was not satisfied even with this and filed a contempt petition being CONT. CASE (C) No.106 of 2010 seeking that contemptuous notes/letters may be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice and all the subsequent action taken on the basis of alleged contemptuous notes/letters. The petitioner also sought initiation of contempt proceedings against Ms.Mala Dutt, the Former Director, IES Cadre and Sh.A.K.Bhardwaj, Senior Central Government Counsel for deliberately and willfully disobeying the order of the High Court. The application for taking contempt action against Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent, and Ms.Mala Dutt, the Former Director, IES Cadre was also dismissed by this Court by the order dated 18th February, 2010. The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, has pointed out and produced a copy of another contempt petition filed by the petitioner being Contempt Petition No.163 of 2010 against Ms.Mala Dutt, the Former Director, IES Cadre and respondents which was also dismissed by the order dated 16th March, 2010 reiterating the pleas and contentions on the basis of which earlier contempt petitions were dismissed. Now, the petitioner has again challenged the same W.P. (C) No.2792/2010 Page 5 of 5 communication by the present writ petition. The communications between the counsel and his client are the privileges and whatsoever is communicated by the respondent‟s counsel to the respondents cannot be raised or impugned by the petitioner by filing this writ petition. The contempt petition of the petitioner has been dismissed. In any case the communication between the respondents and their counsel cannot be quashed or set aside as has been sought by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the present writ petition is devoid of any merit, and is a sheer abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed with cost. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.20,000/- payable to the respondents. Cost be paid to the respondents‟ counsel within two weeks. ANIL KUMAR, J. APRIL 27, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. „VK‟