$~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: 12th 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unconditionally withdrawn by the Petitioner as recorded in order dated 29th
August, 2022. He states that the said writ petition was dismissed as

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA W.P.(C) 1953/2024 Page 1 of 4
Signing Date:13.02.2024
17:46:45
 withdrawn, as the Supreme Court found no merit in the pleas raised by the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

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA W.P.(C) 1953/2024 Page 2 of 4
Signing Date:13.02.2024
17:46:45
 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 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 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 Das2,
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
available from the judgment of this Court in M.J. Exporters Private Limited
v. Union of India, (2021) 13 SCC 543, wherein the principle of constructive
res judicata was applied. The case concerns a litigant who sought to file a
fresh writ petition after withdrawal of the earlier writ petition filed for the
same relief without permission to file fresh one. The Court held that the
principles contained in Order 23, Rule 1 CPC are applicable even in writ
proceedings. Para 15 thereof is extracted below:
"15. In these circumstances, we feel that when this issue was
raised and abandoned in the first writ petition which was
dismissed as withdrawn, the principles of constructive res
judicata which are laid down under Order 23 Rule 1 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and which principles are

1
(1998) 3 SCC 573 (Para 44)
2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 825

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA W.P.(C) 1953/2024 Page 3 of 4
Signing Date:13.02.2024
17:46:45
 extendable to writ proceedings as well as held by this in
Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT, (1987) 1 SCC 5.
38. Having regard to the principles laid down in M.J. Exporters Private
Limited (supra), in our view, applying the principles of constructive res
judicata, the present writ petition filed by the respondents after withdrawal
of the civil suit, was not maintainable, in the sense that it ought not to have
been entertained. In case the respondents still wanted to justify filing of the
writ petition, they should have at least disclosed complete facts and then
justify filing of the writ petition.
39. The writ petition also ought to be dismissed on the ground of
concealment of material facts regarding filing and withdrawal of the civil
suit claiming the same relief. Neither in the writ petition nor in the appeal
against the order passed in the writ petition, the respondents disclosed the
filing of civil suit and withdrawal thereof. It only transpired only that at the
time of the hearing of the appeal.
40. As to how a litigant who conceals material facts from the Court has to
be dealt with, has been gone into by this Court, time and again in plethora
of cases and the consistent opinion is that, he is not entitled even to be
heard on merits.”
(Emphasis supplied)

9. We also do not find any merit in the submission of the Petitioner that
due to the additional allegations of damage to reputation raised in the
present petition a distinct cause has arisen in his favour to enable him to
maintain this petition.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Pending
applications stand disposed of.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

FEBRUARY 12, 2024/msh/aa
Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA W.P.(C) 1953/2024 Page 4 of 4
Signing Date:13.02.2024
17:46:45