Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7948 of 2018 Petitioner :- Subodh Kumar Tyagi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Rai,Amit Saxena,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nagendra Nath Mishra,Tarun Agrawal
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Mr. Om Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mohit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel holding for Mr. Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
The principal prayer made in the writ petition reads thus:
"(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and direct the respondent authority to verify the electoral roll of the ward no. 49 and correct the electoral list of the ward no. 49."
The petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 52934 of 2017 for almost similar prayer and the said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 10.11.2017. The order reads thus:
"The only prayer made in the writ petition, reads thus:
"(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and direct the respondent no.2 to 4 to correct the entire Voter list in the Ward No.13, 31 and 49 according to present Voters and delete the name of forge voters who is mentioned in the present voter list."
Admittedly, the petitioners did not raise any objection to the voters list when it was under preparation. By a notification dated 5.9.2017, objections were invited between 9.10.2017 and 15.10.2017. That apart, this petition was filed by the petitioners on 6.11.2017. The last date for nomination was 9.11.2017. The first proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 39 of the U P Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 clearly provides that no deletion or correction or addition in the electoral roll shall be made after the last date for making nominations for an election in the Ward and before completion of such election.
In the circumstances, the challenge, as raised in the writ petition, cannot be entertained. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed."
In Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao vs. K Parasaran, AIR 1996 SC 2687, the Supreme Court observed as under:
"No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. However, access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petition."
Supreme Court in Abdul Rahman vs. Prasony Bai, (2003) 1 SCC 488, held that whenever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of Court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refuse the party from pursuing the remedy in law.
In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 161, the Apex Court held that:
"In consonance with the principle of equity, justice and good conscience judges should ensure that the legal process is not abused by the litigants in any manner. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic costs, which the Respondent or the Defendant has in fact incurred in order to defend himself in the legal proceedings. The courts would be fully justified even imposing punitive costs where legal process has been abused."
Accordingly in this case the applicant-industry was directed to pay costs of litigation on account of enormous court's time which had been wasted for all three years. The Apex Court directed the applicant-industry to pay costs of Rs. 10 lakhs.
In the circumstances, we are inclined to dismiss the writ petition, saddling heavy cost for filing successive petitions. The petition is dismissed with cost quantified to Rs. 25,000/-, to be paid to the Legal Services Authority, within a period of four weeks from today.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 VMA (Suneet Kumar, J) (Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)