IMPORTANT POINT
Violation of PIL Rules, 2010 and the principle of constructive res judicata led to the dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, A.C.J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take action against Respondent No. 3 i.e., Truecaller International LLP, for violating the right of privacy of citizens of India and damaging their reputation.

2. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1- Department of Telecommunications, has raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present petition. He states that an earlier writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No. 1/2022 filed by the Petitioner, as a PIL, on the identical allegations against Respondent No. 3 with similar prayers was not entertained by the Supreme Court and the said writ petition was unconditionally withdrawn by the Petitioner as recorded in order dated 29th August, 2022. He states that the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, as the Supreme Court found no merit in the pleas raised by the Petitioner. He states in view of the dismissal and unconditional withdrawal of the earlier writ petition filed before the Supreme Court, this second petition is not maintainable.

3. He states that the Petitioner has approached this Court by concealing material facts as in the mandatory `non-filing clause' of this petition, the Petitioner has not disclosed the filing of the W.P.(C) No. 1/2022 and its dismissal. He states that the disclosure made in paragraph 22 of this writ petition under the heading `non-filing clause' is misleading. He states that the Petitioner has thus, blatantly violated Rule 9 (h) of the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 (`PIL Rules, 2010').

4. Similarly, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, states that the present petition is not maintainable as there has been no compliance of Rule 9 (g) of the PIL Rules, 2010, as no prior representation on the issues raised in the present petition has been made by the Petitioner before the concerned statutory authorities.

5. In reply, Petitioner, who appears in person, states that the present petition can be maintained as W.P.(C) No. 1/2022 was dismissed as withdrawn. He states that in the present petition, he has raised an additional ground for damages payable by Respondent No. 3 for causing damage to the reputation and business interest of affected parties.

6. We are of the considered opinion that the present petition filed as a PIL is in violation of the PIL Rules, 2010. The Petitioner has violated Rule 9 (h) of the PIL Rules, 2010, by failing to disclose filing of W.P.(C) No. 1/2022 and its dismissal. The Petitioner was under an absolute obligation to disclose the filing of the earlier petition seeking similar reliefs against Respondent No. 3 and violated the PIL Rules, 2010, by withholding this material fact.

7. The contention of the Petitioner that the dismissal of the writ petition before the Supreme Court vide order dated 29th August, 2022 does not bar the filing of the present petition is without any merit. In K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi and Ors, (1998) 3 SCC 573 (Para 44). the Supreme Court has held that one of the examples of abuse of process of the Court is re-litigation.

8. No liberty was reserved to the Petitioner by the Supreme Court in the order dated 29th August, 2022 and therefore, the Petitioner was estopped from filing the present petition against Respondent No. 3 on the same cause of action. The non-maintainability of a second writ petition on account of the principle of constructive res judicata after the unconditional withdrawal of the first writ petition is well settled and has been expounded in the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 825, wherein the Supreme Court held as under:

"37. On the question, as to whether after the withdrawal of a suit claiming the same relief without having permission to institute fresh one for the same relief, a writ petition will be maintainable before the Court, the guidance is