$~39

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 1953/2024

AJAY SHUKLA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Petitioner in person

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Shashank Garg, CGSC with Ms.

Nishtha

Jain and Ms. Aradhya

Chaturvedi, Advocates for R-1

Mr. Arjun Natarajan and Ms. Kamana

Pradhan, Advocates for R-2/TRAI

%

Date of Decision: 12^th February, 2024.

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, ACJ: (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unconditionally withdrawn by the Petitioner as recorded in order dated 29^th

August, 2022. He states that the said writ petition was dismissed as

Signed By:MAHIMA

SHARMA

Signing Date:13.02.2024

17:46:45

Signature Not Verified

withdrawn, as the Supreme Court found no merit in the pleas raised by the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

Signed By:MAHIMA

SHARMA

Signing Date:13.02.2024

17:46:45

Signature Not Verified

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 29^th August, 2022 does not bar

the filing of the present petition is without any merit. In K.K. Modi v. K.N.

Modi and Ors¹. 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 29^th August, 2022 and therefore, t