Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Sanjeev Gupta vs Allahabad High Court on 30 July, 2021

Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah

     WP(C) 830/2020
                                                            1


     ITEM NO.5                           Court 5 (Video Conferencing)                 SECTION PIL-W

                                 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
                                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                                      Writ Petition (Civil) No.830/2020


     SANJEEV GUPTA                                                                Petitioner(s)

                                                       VERSUS

     ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT                                                         Respondent(s)


     Date : 30-07-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.


     CORAM :
                                   HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
                                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH


     For Petitioner(s)
                                         Petitioner-in-person

     For Respondent(s)


                          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                O R D E R

1 The petitioner, who appears in-person, has filed an application for recusal on the ground that this Bench is “prejudiced” against him. The application is frivolous and misconceived. Merely because an earlier Special Leave Petition by the petitioner was listed before this Court and was not entertained would not give rise to any apprehension. It is without basis or substance. The application for recusal is hence rejected.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Chetan Kumar Date: 2021.07.31 13:35:23 IST Reason:

WP(C) 830/2020 2 2 The grievance of the petitioner is in regard to the administrative functioning of the district judiciary in Ghaziabad, UP. The grievances which have been addressed before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, should, in our view, be addressed before the High Court in a properly instituted petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Leaving it open to the petitioner, we dispose of the Petition.

3 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

                 (CHETAN KUMAR)                               (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
                  A.R.-cum-P.S.                                  COURT MASTER