PREM CHAND GUPTA Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(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 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 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 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.