Gujarat High Court
Bipin Prataprai Bhatt vs The Registrar General on 1 September, 2022
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar, Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 73 of 2022
==================================================
BIPIN PRATAPRAI BHATT
Versus
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
==================================================
Appearance:
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 01/09/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR) [1] Petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:-
"12.(A) Your Lordships be pleased to admit this petition;
(B) Your Lordships be pleased to Order to modify the present roster in the interest of older in time litigants (C) Your Lordships be pleased to grant interim relief/s to protect the rights of older litigants in time awaiting for Justice in competition to new litigants.
(D) Your Lordships be pleased to pass any such order/s in the interest of older litigants prior in time looking to the facts and circumstances of the case"Page 1 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022
C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 [2] After arguing the matter for considerable length of time,
petitioner sought leave of the Court to withdraw the petition and we declined to grant the permission, inasmuch as, the case papers on hand would disclose that petitioner is in the habit of submitting the representations after representations on the same issue and this Court is of the considered view that issue which is sought to be canvassed in the present petition requires to be given a quietus for the reasons indicated hereinbelow.
[3] Petitioner who claims to be a practicing Advocate of this Court vide Code No.1529 and having a standing of 29 years of practice is contending that cause which is being espoused by him is purely in the public interest on his own and not at the instance of the any other person or organization which plea will have to be taken with a pinch of salt. It is pleaded by the petitioner that by this petition he is seeking the indulgence of this Court in regard to Roster / Sitting List issued by the Registry commencing from 27.06.2022 and modified on 08.07.2022 contending inter ala it would cause injustice, Page 2 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 impartiality, overturning the oldest cases and breaching the rule of seriatim. It is the contention of Mr. Bipin Prataprai Bhatt, Advocate and petitioner appearing in person that Division Bench's tax matters from 2011 onwards are being heard by one Bench while the Division Bench's tax matters pertaining to the earlier years are being heard by a different Bench (the Bench headed by the Chief Justice) and it would amount to overturning the right of older litigants who are awaiting for the rights before the Court No.1, awaiting since 2010 and as such it would cause injustice, inequality, impartiality before the Court of law. [4] He would also draw the attention of the Court to the contempt matters of the year 2022 onwards dealt by the First Court for admission and final hearing would amount to injustice as the same subject for 21 and earlier years are being dealt by another Court and as such injustice being is caused to the litigants who have filed the petition earlier to 2022. He would further elaborate his submissions by contending that 7 th Court dealing with the labour and service matters is dealing with the matter of the years 2019 onwards whereas the 8 th Court is Page 3 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 dealing with the matters of same subject upto 2018 and this discrimination also leads to injustice being caused to the litigants who have filed petitions earlier to 2019 onwards. [5] He would further submit that 10th Court is dealing with the First Appeal of MACP (Single Judge) from 2012 to 2017 while 14th Court is dealing with the same subject from 2018 onwards and 22nd Court is also dealing with the same subject upto 2011 and thereby there are chances of the litigation pertaining to the later years being disposed of without the cases of earlier years not being considered or adjudicated. On similar lines, the Sitting List of 17th Court, 18th Court and 21st Court is also being assailed. Petitioner would urge that right of early hearing and getting speedy justice is affected by virtue of later litigations being taken up and not the earlier litigations or in other words, the cases filed for the earlier years not being heard and disposed of but only the litigation or cases instituted in the subsequent years being taken up. Hence, he has contended that present Sitting List which is in the nature of overturning the rights of older litigants in comparison to new litigants takes Page 4 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 away right of speedy justice; breach of the rights of the older litigants to be heard and decided by the Court in seriatim is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as also Article
21. Hence, on the grounds urged in the petition, he seeks for the reliefs sought for in the petition being granted. [6] Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that case law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the very same issue requires to be noted which would not only throw light on the present subject but would also end the controversy sought to be projected in the present litigation. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition that Chief Justice being the Master of Roster. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shanti Bhushan versus Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and Another reported in (2018) 8 SCC 396 has held that the Chief Justice while discharging administrative functions of the Court, in his individual capacity has prerogative to constitute Benches and allocate cases to those Benches. It has been further held that Chief Justice gets the authority and Page 5 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 responsibility for the administration of the Court, which gives him the ultimate authority for determining the distribution of judicial work load. Tracing this power to Section 243 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and similar powers as is extended to the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justices of the High Courts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:-
"26. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is given the authority to frame Rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court, including various subjects as enumerated in sub-Article (1) of Article
145. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which have been framed in exercise of such a power empowered the Chief Justice to constitute the Benches and list particular matters before such Benches. Similar powers are conferred upon the Chief Justice of the High Courts in the Rules framed by respective High Courts for regulating its procedure.
27. At the same time, the power of the 'Chief Justice' does not extend to regulate the functioning of a particular Bench to decide cases assigned to him once the cases are allocated to that Bench. A Bench comprising of puisne Judges exercise its judicial function without interference from others, including the 'Chief Justice', as it is supposed to act according to law. Therefore, when a particular matter is assigned to a particular Bench, that Bench acquires the complete dominion over the case.Page 6 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022
C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
28. From the aforesaid, it follows that the two most obvious functions of the 'Chief Justice' are to exercise judicial power as a Judge of the Court on equal footing as others, being 'among equals' and to assume responsibility of the administration of the Court."
[7] In the matter of State of Rajasthan versus Prakash Chand and Others reported in (1998) 1 SCC 1, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while on the judicial side the Chief Justice of the High Court is only the first amongst the equals, the administrative control of the High Court vests with the Chief Justice of the High Court alone and it is his prerogative to distribute business of the High Court both judicial and administrative. It has been further held that he alone has the right and power to decide how the Benches of the High Court are to be constituted, which Judge is to sit alone and which cases he can and is required to hear as also which Judges shall constitute a Division Bench and what work those Benches shall do. It has been further held:-
10. A careful reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Ordinance and Rule 54 (supra) shows that the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice of the High Court alone and that it is his Page 7 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 prerogative to distribute business of the High Court both judicial and administrative. He alone, has the right and power to decide how the Benches of the High Court are to be constituted: which Judge is to sit alone and which cases he can and is required to hear as also as to which Judges shall constitute a Division Bench and what work those Benches shall do. In other words the Judges of the High Court can sit alone or in Division Benches and do such work only as may be allotted to them by an order of or in accordance with the directions of the Chief Justice. That necessarily means that it is not within the competence or domain of any single or division bench of the court to give any direction to the Registry in that behalf which will run contrary to the directions of the Chief Justice. Therefore in the scheme of things judicial discipline demands that in the event a single Judge or a division bench considers that a particular case requires to be listed before it for valid reasons, it should direct the Registry to obtain appropriate orders from the chief Justice. The puisne Judges are not expected to entertain any request from the advocates of the parties for listing of case which does not strictly fall within the determined roster. In such cases, it is appropriate to direct the counsel to make a mention before the Chief Justice and obtain appropriate orders.
This is essential for smooth functioning of the Court. Though, on the judicial side the Chief Justice is only the 'first amongst the equals', on the administrative side in the matter of constitution of Benches and makes of roster, he alone is vested with the necessary powers. That the power to make roster exclusively vests in the Chief Justice and that a daily cause list is to be prepared under the Page 8 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 directions of the Chief Justice as is borne out from Rule 73, which reads thus:-
"73, Daily Cause List.- The Registrar shall subject to such directions as the Chief Justice may give from time to time cause to be prepared for each day on which the Court sits, a list of cases which may be heard by the different Benches of the Court. The list shall also state the hour at which and the room in which each Bench shall sit. Such list shall be known as the Day's List."
23. The above opinion appeals to us and we agree with it. Therefore, from a review of the statutory provisions and the cases on the subject as rightly decided by various High Courts, to which reference has been made by us, it follows that no judge or a Bench of judges can assume jurisdiction in a case pending in the High Court unless the case in allotted to him or them by the Chief Justice. Strict adherence of this procedure is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and proper functioning of the Court. No departure from it can be permitted. If every judge of a High Court starts picking and choosing cases for disposal by him, the discipline in the High Court would be the casualty and the administration of Justice would suffer. No legal system can permit machinery of the court to collapse. The Chief Justice has the authority and the jurisdiction to refer even a part-heard case to a Division Bench for its disposal in accordance with law where the Rules so demand. It is a complete fallacy to assume that a part-heard case can under no circumstances be withdrawn from the Bench and referred to a larger bench, even where the Rule make it essential for such a case to be heard by a larger Bench.
Page 9 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022
C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
59.(1) That the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice alone. On the judicial side, however, he is only the first amongst the equals. (2) That the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He alone has the prerogative to constitute benches of the court and allocated cases to the benches so constituted. (3) That the puisne Judges can only do that work as is allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions.
(4) That till any determination made by the Chief Justice lasts, no Judge who is to sit singly can sit in a Division Bench and no Division Bench can be split up by the Judges constituting the bench can be split up by the Judges constituting the bench themselves and one or both the Judges constituting such bench sit singly and take up any other kind of judicial business not otherwise assigned to them by or under the directions of the Chief Justice." [8] In this background, we may have to observe that in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, Sections 30, 32 and 40 of the Bombay Re- organization Act, 1960, Clauses 13, 22, 24, 27 and 28 and other enabling clauses of the Letters Patent Act, the High Court of Gujarat has made the rules for regulating practice and procedure of the public interest litigation in the High Court of Page 10 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 Gujarat which is known and called as the High Court of Gujarat (Practice and Procedure for Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010.
[9] In supersession of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 came to be notified which has come into force with effect from 24.06.1993. Under Chapter-X Court Sittings Warned List, Weekly and Daily Board finds a place and Rule 122 provides for preparation of Sitting List and Rule 123 provides for preparation of list of ready matters by the Registrar of High Court under the orders of the Chief Justice. It reads thus:-
"122. Sitting list.-(i) The Registrar shall, before the commencement of a term, prepare under the orders of the Chief Justice, a Sitting List showing the number of Division, Courts, the names of the Judge or Judges sitting in each Division Court. The sitting list shall be put up on the Notice Board as far as possible one week before the commencement of the term.
(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in the sitting list, the Chief Justice may, if he deems fit, constitute special Benches or change the sitting during the term.Page 11 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022
C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
123. Preparation of list of ready matters.-(i)All pending matters which are ready and transferred to the Board Department shall be placed on the list of ready matters which shall be prepared every year by the Board Department before the end of the Summer Vacation after physical verification of the matters pending in the Board Department. A separate list shall be prepared for each calss of cases and in each class short notice or expedited matters shall be separately shown as a distinct sub-class.
In such class or sub-class matters required to be placed before a Division bench and those which are to be placed before a single Judge shall be separately shown. Separate lists shall be prepared year wise according to the year in which the matter was admitted to the Register and numbered; and the list for each year and class shall be prepared in duplicate and the duplicate list shall be available for inspection of parties, Advocates or their clerks. For the purposes of these rules, short notice matters shall include:-
(a) Appeals under Special Acts.
(b) Appeals against preliminary decrees.
(c) Appeals under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure
Code.
(d) Appeals from decrees and orders of the City Civil
Court.
(e) Petitions under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the
Constitution.
(f) Applications for the exercise of the Civil
revisional jurisdiction of the Court.
(g) Applications for transfer of proceedings.
Page 12 of 24
Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022
C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
(h) Applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court or under the Letters Patent.
(i) Disciplinary proceedings.
(j) Contempt proceedings.
(ii) Matters shall be placed on the list of ready
matters strictly according to the sequence of the serial number in each sub-class.
(iii) At the end of every month the matters which are ready and transferred to the Board Department during the course of the month shall be notified on the Notice Board and added to the list of ready matters in its appropriate class or sub-class. Such added matters shall take their place in the list according to their serial number in each class or sub-class.
(iv) A matter in the list of ready matters which for any reason becomes unready, shall be removed from the list."
[10] Thus on a plain reading of the above Rules it would emerge that sitting lists are required to be prepared by the Registrar under the orders of the Chief Justice showing the number of Division, Courts, the names of the Judge or Judges sitting in each Division. Sub Rule (ii) of Rule 122 empowers the Chief Justice to constitute special Benches or change the sittings during the term, which sub-rule starts with a non Page 13 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 obstante clause. Thus, it would clearly emerge from the above Rules that it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to prepare the Sitting List, assign the matters to the Judge or Judges constituting the Benches either Single or Division or such other Benches as he deems fit in the prevailing circumstances. In fact petitioner in the instant case also does not dispute this fact. As already noticed herein-above grievance of the petitioner seems to that two different Benches are hearing the same subject and on the premise that in the event of a particular Bench were to take up the matter of a particular year, the matters pending before the different Bench of the different year is not likely to be disposed of and as such there is likelihood of matters of the later years being disposed of than the matters of the earlier years. This apprehension is not only misplaced but also misconceived. Having regard to the nature of pendency, both year wise or subject wise, the list has been prepared and the grievance of the petitioner is not only mischievous but also frivolous is evident from the fact that statistics placed by the Registry would indicate that the contempt petitions, which came to be disposed of from 13.10.2021 to till date i.e. 01.09.2022 are Page 14 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 1094 cases. The total pendency of the contempt petitions as on date is as under:-
Civil Contempts : 262 matters Criminal Contempts : 42 matters Total : 304 matters
Thus over a period of 10 months more than 1094 cases of contempt matters have been disposed of by this Court, which pertains to all years. It is because of this precise reason, petitioner's say that plea raised by the petitioner is not only mischievous but also frivolous. Accordingly, the said contentions stands rejected.
[11] Petitioner who claims to be a lawyer practicing in this Court with 29 years of standing when posed with a pointed question as to whether he has practiced on the tax side and as to whether any appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has/had been filed or a petition either under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on the taxation side has/had been filed by him, his answer has been in the negative Page 15 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 and this would clearly indicate that he does not have even the bare minimum knowledge about taxation matters and yet he is trying to espouse the so called public cause of the litigant public who have approached this Court for redressal of their grievance on taxation subject. Even on general filing of cases, the learned counsel appearing as party-in-person has pleaded that he has very less number of cases filed by him before this Court. Be that as it may. While the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing as to whether any contours are required to be laid down with regard to the filing of the public interest litigation in the case of State of Uttaranchal versus Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 has held:-
128. The South African Constitution has adopted with a commitment to "transform the society into one in which there will be human dignity, freedom and equality." - See:
Soobramoney v. Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal, 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC), p. 5. Thus, improving access to justice falls squarely within the mandate of this Constitution. In furtherance of this objective, the South African legal framework takes a favorable stance towards PIL by prescribing broad rules of standing and relaxing pleading requirements.
(A) Broad Rules of Standing
Page 16 of 24
Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022
C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:-
(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives.
Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter.
(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. (4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
Page 17 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022
C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
(5) The court should be fully satisfied that
substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations." [12] Thus, it is expected from a member of noble profession and that too by a practising lawyer not to invoke jurisdiction of the Court in a matter where controversy itself is no longer res integra. Petitioner herein who claims to be a lawyer with standing of 29 years ought to have taken at minimum care before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before filing of this Page 18 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 writ petition in public interest which is conspicuously absent. The controversy raised by the petitioner with regard to the arrangement of Sitting being improper or List ought not to have been prepared in the manner in which it has been prepared is an issue which is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court which we have discussed hereinabove. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held:-
"29. The public interest litigation is the product of realization of the constitutional obligation of the court.
31. According to our opinion, the public interest litigation is an extremely important jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The Courts in a number of cases have given important directions and passed orders which have brought positive changes in the country. The Courts' directions have immensely benefited marginalized sections of the society in a number of cases. It has also helped in protection and preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife etc. etc. The court's directions to some extent have helped in maintaining probity and transparency in the public life.
32. This court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review realized that a very large section of the society because of extreme poverty, ignorance, discrimination and illiteracy had been denied justice for time immemorial and in fact they have no access to justice. Pre-dominantly, to provide access to justice to the poor, Page 19 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 deprived, vulnerable, discriminated and marginalized sections of the society, this court has initiated, encouraged and propelled the public interest litigation. The litigation is upshot and product of this court's deep and intense urge to fulfill its bounded duty and constitutional obligation.
39. The origin and evolution of Public Interest Litigation in India emanated from realization of constitutional obligation by the Judiciary towards the vast sections of the society - the poor and the marginalized sections of the society. This jurisdiction has been created and carved out by the judicial creativity and craftsmanship.
40. In M. C. Mehta & Another v. Union of India & Others AIR 1987 SC 1086, this Court observed that Article 32 does not merely confer power on this Court to issue direction, order or writ for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Instead, it also lays a constitutional obligation on this Court to protect the fundamental rights of the people. The court asserted that, in realization of this constitutional obligation, "it has all incidental and ancillary powers including the power to forge new remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce the fundamental rights". The Court realized that because of extreme poverty, a large number of sections of society cannot approach the court. The fundamental rights have no meaning for them and in order to preserve and protect the fundamental rights of the marginalized section of society by judicial innovation, the courts by judicial innovation and creativity started giving necessary directions and passing orders in the public interest."Page 20 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022
C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 [13] No person including a person from a noble legal profession can rush to Court by filing cases claiming to be public spirited interest. By the said attractive name and under the said guise, a complete go-by cannot be given to the established and standard principles. Such causes espoused should inspire public confidence and also confidence in the Court. To put it differently, they should be above suspicion. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering justice to the citizens. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suraz India Trust versus Union of India reported in (2017) 14 SCC 416 has held that abuse of judicial time, prolonged hearing is sometimes sought by individuals, who themselves fail to handle complex issues of law and such misadventures must be dealt with sternly especially when such individuals cast imaginary accusations or express self proclaimed apprehensions by imposing exemplary cost.
[14] The averments made in the petition are not only as vague, vagueness could be but also bereft of minimum particulars as to Page 21 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 how the constitution of the Benches has affected the litigants is not explained with mathematical precision, which is expected of in such circumstances. To put the records straight, we have noticed hereinabove insofar as the contempt jurisdiction is concerned, dealt by this Bench has resulted in 1094 cases being disposed of within a short span of about eight and half months.
Yet with impunity petitioner attempts to make a sweeping statement contending inter alia that assignment of the contempt petitions to two different Benches, namely, one up to the year of 2022 being dealt by the First Court and the earlier petitions being dealt by 4th Court has resulted in injustice to the litigant public. On the other hand, it is the litigant public who have benefited in this process and they have never complained on this aspect. Neither the statutory body like Bar Council of Gujart or the High Court Bar Association have any grievance. Matters dealt by different Benches either on the tax side or on the MACP side for different years being dealt by such Benches has yielded good results namely, such Benches are disposing of more number of cases on account of such assignment which otherwise would not have seen the light. Thus, apprehension Page 22 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 expressed by the petitioner is without any basis or foundation and it is mischievous and ill-conceived and made for gain cheap popularity. Thus, wasting of precious judicial time by filing such petitions and arguing the matter for considerable length of time and thereafter seeking leave of the Court to withdraw of the petition after being confronted with questions from Court and expecting negative results is not only a trick and stratagem adopted by such persons, but also a method adopted to gain popularity which cannot be countenanced and it requires to be curbed with iron hand and we do so by not only dismissing this petition but also dismissing with exemplary costs.
[15] For the reason aforestated, we dismiss this petition with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) payable by the petitioner and we hereby direct that Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the Chief Minister's Covid Relief Fund and Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the Advocates' Welfare Fund. In the event of said amount not being paid and affidavit reporting the payment is not reported within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Registry shall issue a Page 23 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022 C/WPPIL/73/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022 certificate to the District Collector, Ahmedabad for recovering the same from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.
(ARAVIND KUMAR, C.J.) (ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.) DHARMENDRA KUMAR Page 24 of 24 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:50:18 IST 2022