PIL against Truecaller: Review plea of earlier order dismissed, Delhi HC imposes Rs 10k cost
Dismissing the petitioner, Ajay Shukla’s, review plea, the bench imposed a cost of Rs 10,000.
2 min read
In its February 12 order, the bench, while dismissing the PIL, noted that it was filed in violation of the PIL Rules, 2010. (File Photo)Imposing a cost of Rs 10,000, the Delhi High Court Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking a review of its earlier decision where it had rejected a PIL moved against mobile application Truecaller. The PIL had sought directions to the Centre to take action against the mobile application for “violating the right of privacy of citizens of India and damaging their reputation”.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said no grounds for review of its February 12 decision were made out.
Dismissing the petitioner, Ajay Shukla’s, review plea, the bench imposed a cost of Rs 10,000.
In its February 12 order, the bench, while dismissing the PIL, noted that it was filed in violation of the PIL Rules, 2010. The order stated that the petitioner had not disclosed that he had filed a petition before the Supreme Court in 2022 with “identical allegations” against Truecaller which was “dismissed as withdrawn”.
“The petitioner has violated Rule 9 (h) of the PIL Rules, 2010, by failing to disclose the 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 (Truecaller) and violated the PIL Rules, 2010, by withholding this material fact. 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… No liberty was reserved to the petitioner by the Supreme Court and, therefore, the petitioner was estopped from filing the present petition against Respondent No. 3 on the same cause of action,” the bench had said.
You May Like
