Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PREM CHANDRA SURESH CHANDRA NETA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Prem Chandra Suresh Chandra Neta v. State Of U.P. And Others - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. 38212 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 11882 (20 July 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.32

Civil Misc. Writ Petition (PIL) No.38212 of 2006

Prem Chand Suresh Chand Netaji vs. State of U.P. & others.

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

This writ petition, as Public Interest Litigation, has been filed by Prem Chand Suresh Chand Netaji praying that the Rules of 1965 made under the Agriculture Produce Market Act should be set aside, the employees of the local committee has no right to continue under the Act and, therefore, the property of the petitioner taken by the respondents be directed to be returned.

After hearing the petitioner, who appeared in person and Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Mandi Samiti, we are constrained to observe that the petitioner appears to be in the habit of filing frivolous writ petitions making serious allegations against the officers of the court as well as the authorities.  This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking declaration that the Mandi Samiti has no right to continue as it is farzi samiti that the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Act is ultra vires.  It appears that the petitioner earlier approached this Court in writ petition no.33758 of 1998 wherein the aforesaid contention of the petitioner was not accepted and the writ petition was dismissed.  Again he filed writ petition no.33559 of 2006 with similar relief, which came up before us and after hearing the petitioner, who appeared in person, and Shri B.D. Mandhayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 10.7.2006.  The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under: -

"Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti at the outset pointed out that the petitioner is in the habit of filing frivolous petitions involving the same issue against which earlier several writ petitions have already been dismissed.  He further pointed out that the petitioner has made wild and scandalous allegations against the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and the contemptuous allegations have also been made against the Hon'ble Court.  He drew out attention to Annexure 7 to the writ petition which is a copy of order dated 2.11.1999 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in writ petition no.37758 of 1998 wherein also the same petitioner had raised the contention that Mandi Samiti is a Farzi Samiti and is functioning illegally.  However, the aforesaid writ petition, after going through relevant provisions, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court with a direction to the Vigilance Cell to consider the Complaint of the petitioner in respect to certain other allegations.  He also referred to Annexure-12 to the writ petition containing the order dated 24th September, 2002 passed by a Division Bench of this Court where considering the petitioner's application in the aforesaid writ petition, it was observed that the writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 2.11.1999.  With respect to the contemptuous statement made against the Court, Sri Mandhyan referred to paras 17 and 23 of the writ petition.  The wild defamatory statement made against the senior counsel of the Court is in paras 32 and 33 of the writ petition.

After perusing the record and considering the conduct of the petitioner, this Court initially was inclined to issue notice to the petitioner but he repented and apologized submitting that he is an illiterate person and, therefore, was not aware of the legal niceties of the matter.  He also prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw this petition.  We seriously deprecate the attitude of the petitioner in filing repeated writ petition, making wild allegations against the officers of the Court as well as against the Court.  However, taking a lenient view, since the petitioner has apologized and seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition, we allow him to withdraw this writ petition and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed as with drawn."

Now immediately within a short time of less than a fortnight, the petitioner has filed present writ petition, as Public Interest Litigation, though the relief sought in the present writ petition is also same, as it was in the earlier writ petitions.

A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition is writ large to show that serious allegations have been made against the Court and the Officers of the Court namely, the Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of Mandi Samiti.  In the very first paragraph the petitioner has alleged that this Court earlier dismissed the writ petition filed by some traders against the Mandi Samiti wrongly, since the Court has no knowledge of law and, therefore, in an illegal manner dismissed the writ petition.  It would be appropriate to reproduce the averments made in paragraph 1 of the writ petition: -

"------dkuwu dh tkudkjh u U;k;ky; dks Fkh vkSj u ikVhZ dks Fkh] vkSj xyr rjhds ls [kkfjt fd;k x;k ------------A"

Further in various paragraphs of the petition the petitioner has averred that the Act pertaining to Mandi Samiti is nonest and thereafter, in subsequent paragraph, has made allegations even against the high constitutional office like Advocate General.  We also called for the record of writ petition no.33559 of 2006 and found that most of the paragraphs in the aforesaid writ petition have been reproduced verbatim in the present writ petition.  In nutshell, though termed as Public Interest Litigation, the present writ petition is nothing but an attempt, on the part of the petitioner, to rake up an issue, which he already raised in earlier writ petitions, and has failed.  We have no manner of doubt that an attempt on the part of the petitioner to file frequent writ petitions raising same issue is neither bona fide nor is in public interest.  On the contrary, it is a gross abuse of the process of law and an ugly attempt to malign the State machinery for personal grouse as a vendetta.  We are aware that the principle of res judicata is not applicable normally in Public Interest Litigation, but the writ petition in hand, though termed as Public Interest Litigation, in any substance is not so and is motivated for oblique consideration.  This Court cannot allow its process to be abused for oblique consideration by masked phantom, who monitor at times from behind.  Some persons, with vested interest, indulge in the past-time of meddling with judicial process, either by force of habit or for improper motives.  Some times they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity.  The Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned by observing that the writ petition of such busy body deserves to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold with exemplary cost.  The petitioner, in the present case, from the manner in which he has titled the writ petition, as Public Interest Litigation, cannot be said to be a person unaware of the legal niceties of the matter.  When confronted by the Court that his earlier writ petitions with similar reliefs were dismissed and how can he rake up the same issue again in the present writ petition, he promptly replied that the earlier writ petitions were filed by him in his personal capacity though present writ petition is a Public Interest Litigation and, therefore, is different.  The mischief and the cleverness of the petitioner is, therefore, self evident.  If this writ petition is entertained, at the instance of the petitioner, it will cause immense damage to the system itself inasmuch as we cannot allow a misconceived petition filed with oblique motive, to be treated as Public Interest Litigation, though the issue raised, in the garb of Public Interest Litigation, has already been turn down in the writ petition filed by the same person earlier.  Any such attempt would encourage the similar mischief by others and after losing the matter in regular channel it would allow them to re-agitate the issue in the garb of Public Interest Litigation.  Transparency of the judicial system and zeal on the part of the Courts to extend the arm of justice to the poorest cannot be allowed to be twisted in such manner.  Therefore, it is a fit case where not only the writ petition deserves to be rejected but also it deserves an exemplary cost against the petitioner with the hope that he would now mend his ways and would not hazard such vexatious litigation in future.  

In Dr. B. Singh vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2004 SC 1923 the Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing the Public Interest Litigation found to be a vexatious litigation observed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/-.  However, it imposed the cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the petitioner directing him to deposit the sum in the Registry of the Court within six weeks failing which the said amount is to be recovered by coercive means of recovery from the petitioner.  

In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2005 SC 540 the Hon'ble Apex Court deprecating filing of such vexatious petition under the title Public Interest Litigation observed that the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs.  It further observed as under: -

"................It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts." (para 13)

A cost of Rs.25,000/- was imposed in the aforesaid case.  While dismissing the writ petition in Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2005 SC 2755 it was observed that the Court must do justice by promotion of good faith and prevent law from crafty invasion.  No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes.  Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.  

In view of the aforesaid discussions, in our view, this writ petition also deserves to be dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/-, which the petitioner is directed to deposit with the Registrar General of the Court within two months from today.  In case the aforesaid amount is not deposited, the Registrar General of this Court shall inform the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar to take steps for the recovery of the aforesaid amount from the petitioner by coercive measures as arrears of land revenue and after recovering the aforesaid amount from the petitioner the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar shall remit the same to the Registrar General of this Court for being deposited in the account of the Legal Aid Committee.

With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands dismissed.

20.7.2006

SA/A.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.