LPA No.264/2009 Page No.1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA No.264 OF 2009 & C.M. No.8056 OF 2009 PREM CHAND GUPTA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K. Venkatraman, Advocate. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Chetan Chawla, Advocate for UOI/R-1 & 2. Mr. Vikas Pahwa with Mr. Biswajit Kumar Patra, standing counsel for CBI. Mr. Subhash Bansal, Senior standing counsel for R-4, 5. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL O R D E R % 28.05.2009 1. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 21.4.2009 of the learned single judge. The brief factual matrix of the matter is as follows :- 2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) seeking a direction to the respondents (original respondents in the writ petition) particularly, the CBI, after considering the relevant files prepared in 1992 based on his complaints dated 13.5.1992 and 28.7.1992 regarding raids planned against “Mahavir Metals” (a family concern of certain individuals, whom the appellant terms as Jain Brothers). Apparently, the appellant had worked with the said Jain Brothers as their Accountant and he alleges that they were indulging in illegal activities and were involved in smuggling and transacting in precious LPA No.264/2009 Page No.2 of 3 metals without disclosing them in their books of accounts. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that his complaints motivated the authorities to conduct a search and also plan a raid which was later abandoned. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the court in exercise of its judicial powers could look into the file and ascertain why the raid was not conducted and thereafter issue appropriate directions. 3. The learned single judge took note of the fact that the appellant had approached this court on two earlier occasions. In those proceedings too similar directions were sought for. Writ Petition No.306 of 1995 earlier filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned single judge. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Division Bench. The appellant attempted to get further redressal through appeal by a Special Leave Petition which met with similar fate. Thereafter, when the appellant again sought to agitate the matter by filing a Writ Petition No.615 of 1998, the same was rejected by the Division Bench. 4. The above facts would show that the appellant had approached this court on two separate occasions. He had gone up to the Supreme Court, raising the same grievance that he has in the present case. The merits of his contentions were gone into elaborately on both the occasions. The orders passed by this court in the petitions of the appellant were determinative of the issue as to the correctness or otherwise of the action of the respondents calling of the raid. The learned single judge, thus, rightly concluded that the appellant’s persistence in insisting that the court should intervene LPA No.264/2009 Page No.3 of 3 and issue directions to the CBI could not be entertained. Clearly, the appellant is seeking to re-agitate the issues which have been already concluded in two previous proceedings initiated by the appellant. These determinations were conclusive and the appellant was bound by them. 5. Accordingly the appeal must fail. The appeal is dismissed. The application stands disposed of as well. CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J. MAY 28, 2009 ‘AA’