Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
This petition is of the year 2010 and in spite of the same being listed is not being prosecuted by the petitioners, as none appears on their behalf on each day, the same is being called out, as such, we are forced to hear Sri Sudhir Saxena, who has been assisting the Court as the counsel of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
The prayers which have been made in the present petition are as under :-
1.That this Court should issue writ in the nature of habeas corpus, order or direction so as to deciding or hearing the criminal revision petitions, criminal appeals of different nature and other such proceedings in which cases the persons are interested which are pending before this Court;
2.That the court should issue writ of habeas corpus and should declare the detention of the accused like the present petitioners who have been convicted and should declare their further detention as against the Constitution and law and should direct their release.
3.This court should issue the writ of habeas corpus or of mandamus to itself and should direct the hearing of appeals pending against the judgments of conviction passed in the cases of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and further direct that appropriate Benches be constituted for granting reliefs as prayed for, in different proceedings.
4.Any other relief this Court deems fit to be granted, besides the last 4th relief, costs of the present proceedings.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has filed replies to the petition and has submitted, as may appear from paragraph 4 onwards that statutory rights of appeal or of revision, being exercised by different convicted persons including the present petitioners appeal/ revision were duly filed before the appropriate benches and due process of law was observed. When the prayer for bail of the petitioners was taken up for hearing an appropriate orders either in the nature of rejection or allowing prayer have been passed. It was contended that as remedy was available under law, then the petition itself was not maintainable as the petitioners have already availed alternative, efficacious statutory remedy available to them. So far as the other prayers are concerned it was contended that the Rules of the Court specially Chapter XXI were clear as to how the Habeas Corpus petitions have to be filed and that clearly points out that unless the confinement was illegal, no such petition could be maintainable. It was further brought to our notice that similar prayer has been decided by the court in Habeas Corpus petition no.30373 of 2009 Ram Lochan Yadav vs. State of U. P. and others and it was held that a convict could not claim himself to be illegally detained as such no remedy could be availed by him under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
We might be sitting on the judicial side of the court but the administrative side of the court is also the judicial acts of the judges towards administration of justice. If each one of us start issuing direction on such frivolous petitions then not only a chaotic situation shall be created, but the very position of Hon'ble the Chief Justice which is unique in constitution of the High Court would also be put to jeopardy.
It is true that the petitioners have shown their concern about pendency of different petitions or matters yearwise before this Court but the petitioners lack of courage to point out that the sanctioned strength of this Court being of 160 judges, just one month prior from today, our number was only 75 which has now been increased to 86. This Court is still functioning almost under half of its strength and the pendency which has been pointed out by the petitioners simply appear a particular task as regards the number of Judges which this Court is having today on its bench. Pendency is not the creation of the Judges. This petition should itself be an example as to how the pendency is increased because after having filed the petition in 2010, the petitioners have not been at pains to ensure that the petition is properly prosecuted and the court is allowed to pass a proper order. This petition remained pending for two years, might be for some reasons, but since last week or so we had been grappling with the situation of not having before with us the learned counsel for the petitioners so as to hearing the petition and disposing it of and could, legitimately, point out that this petition at least remained pending before us since the day it was listed before us. Only because the learned counsel was not appearing, the absence of the counsel has forced us to hear the matter finally and decide it.
We cannot direct the Court, under the circumstance we have just noted. It would not only be perilous to do but shall also be a dangerous and hazardous thing to happen to judicial system. The Chief Justice of any court is supposed to be sensitive enough to the pendency and it is further supposed that His Lordship is making all efforts to expedite the hearing alongwith his brother judges. Any one from the public might be public-spirited in highlighting the pendency but here in the present case we are of the opinion that the petitioners appears more interested in hogging the lime-light than raising and agitating a right cause. As regards the relief of issuing direction in the nature of mandamus, etc. to the court for its expeditious disposal of the cases, we do not find any reason existing for our indulgence.
We have reasons to believe that Hon'ble Judges of the Court are conscientious and they are making valiant efforts in their own way to dispose of as many number of cases, as could be allowed to be disposed of, by the parties.
While we were perusing the petition and hearing Sri Mehrotra, we had an impression coming out of the record and that the main attempt of the petitioners was to short circuit the legal procedure and to get a relief which could not be granted to them in the garb of this petition which has been filed under the heading of 'Habeas Corpus Petition'.
This petition, in our considered view, is out and out unnecessary and appears frivolous and the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.5.2012 skv