Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31603 of 2019
Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder
Respondent :- Union Of India And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P.N. Giri
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brij Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. We have heard Sri A.P.N. Giri, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Ajay Kumar Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Brij Kumar Yadav learned counsel for respondent no. 5, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 2, 8 & 9. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner at great length for almost 45 minutes.
2. By means of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ in nature of quo warranto asking the respondent no. 3 and 4 how and under which provision of the constitution and the law the respondent no.3 and 4 sits and vote on Bill introduced on the floor of Union as well as State Legislature.
(ii) Issue a writ in nature of prohibition restraining the Ministers herein respondent no. 3 and 4 to enjoy biased dual power, one in Houses of Parliament under article 100, by voting on Bill to make law, and other in Executive, under Article 74 to enforce the law in the houses of respondent nos. 6 and 7.
(iii) Issue a writ in nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 and 4 to vacate the seat of the Ministers as disqualified under warrant of Article 101 & Article 102 read with Article 190 & Article 191 of the Constitution, from their respective House from where they were appointed as Ministers for ends of justice.
(iv) Issue any other order or writ as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper by which 42nd constitution Act 1976, Constitution 44th amendment Act 1977, Constitution 91 of amendment Act 2003 amending Article 74 and 75 be declared as ultra vires to part III of the constitution read with AIR 1973 SC 1461 and 1 (S.S.C.) 1987, 378 of Supreme Court Judgement for ends of justice."
3. Counsel for petitioner has challenged vires of amendment of Articles 74 and 75 by 42nd Constitution Amendment Act, 1976, 44th Constitution Amendment Act 1977 and 91st Constitution Amendment Act 2003.
4. Petitioner Shyam Sundar has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution. It is not a Public Interest Litigation. He, in entire petition, has not disclosed as to what legal right and cause of action has occasioned to file this petition. At the most, we could find that contention of petitioner is that under Article 12 of Constitution of India, land under Section 195, 197 and 198 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1950') is being allotted to some villagers adopting pick and choose method but in entire petition, we find no averment as to in what manner petitioner is affected by same.
5. Petitioner has further sought issue of writ of quo warranto but individuals against whom a writ of quo warranto has been prayed for, have not been impleaded though they are necessary and proper parties. Thus, in their absence, writ of quo warranto cannot be issued.
6. Further petitioner has challenged various provisions of the Constitution, mainly, alleging violation of basic feature relying on alleged intra communication between various constitutional position holders. In our view, what transpired in process of enactment of a statute or even of Constitutional amendment cannot be a basis to challenge vires of such enactment. An enactment can be challenged only if it ex-facie violates constitutional test which, if not satisfied, enactment would be invalid. It is alleged that Council of Ministers have robbed off power of President and Governor respectively under the cover of advice but we find no basis or foundation for such assumption.
7. In para 9 of petition, it is said that petitioner has come to know that leader of majority party claims position of Prime Minister or Chief Minister in the Center or State respectively, as the case may be, and this is a colourable exercise of power and a fraud on the constitution. We find no basis for such assumption as stated in para 9. This paragraph has been sworn on the basis of personal knowledge though petitioner claims that he has come to know about facts stated in para 9. Similarly, in para 10, a serious allegation has been made that an appointed Prime Minister on false and fake majority of House of People control and direct elected President and all Institutions constituted under Constitution and same is the position in State. There is nothing to indicate that Prime Minister at Center or Chief Minister of the State is not holding effective majority in the House and it is false or fake majority. Reckless and unsubstantiated allegations have been made against the persons holding high constitutional positions which need not only to be rejected but must be seriously deprecated. Before making such allegations, it was obligatory on the part of petitioner to demonstrate by material, the facts, which he has pleaded. In fact entire writ petition as drafted is nothing but a document prepared by a person lacking adequate understanding, information and even average intelligence.
7A. Learned counsel for petitioner has taken almost 40 minutes in arguments without replying to any question of Court and without making himself clear actually as to what he wanted to convey.
Further we find that the petitioner has gone to the extent of making aspersion even on Judges/Judiciary. Paras 15 to 106 of the writ petition have been sworn on personal knowledge and it includes para 81 wherein petitioner has made insinuations and aspersions on Judges. Para 81 of writ petition reads as under:-
“81. That in consequence thereof, the judges (Bench) accused Bar for Justice” and enjoyed the salary, power and privilege in impugned polluted politics or Governance, and thus corruption, threat, discrimination, poverty, unemployment, afraid, crime, illiteracy, terror etc. remains with us the petitioner. However the person enjoying the service in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial organ of State is making their future dark or black today giving aid to the Ministry of Government.”
(Emphasis added)
8. When we required learned counsel for petitioner to substantiate what he has pleaded in paragraph 81, he could place nothing before us. Thus, we are clear in forming opinion that not only petitioner has drafted this petition in a most casual and callous manner without caring to the fact that he is making allegations against higher constitutional position holders but he has gone to the extent of making aspersion on the Judiciary/Judges also. Thus, this writ petition is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law. It is, accordingly, dismissed with cost of Rs.1 lakh.
9. We further issue notice to petitioner to show cause as to why he may not be punished for contempt by making serious aspersion on Judges in general in his pleading, i.e., para 81 of writ petition which has been sworn on personal knowledge. He will submit reply within three weeks.
10. Office shall register the aforesaid notice as separate criminal complaint case and, after obtaining nomination from Hon'ble the Chief Justice, place before appropriate Bench for further action.
11. So far as this petition, it stands dismissed with cost of Rs. One lakh subject to above direction.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Ram Murti