Delhi High Court
Suraz Indiatrust vs Union Of India on 11 September, 2019
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: Chief Justice, C.Hari Shankar
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 10605/2015 & CM Appls.45216/2016, 16307/2017,
43155/2018, 47492/2018 &16807/2018
SURAZ INDIATRUST ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Daiya in person
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
% JUDGMENT
11.09.2019
per D.N.PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE
1. This writ petition has been filed by an organisation going by
name of Suraz India Trust, through its chairman Rajiv Daiya,
purportedly filed in public interest.
2. It prays, inter alia, that the right of the people of India, who
seeks legal recourse on being injured/victimization as a result of
breach of laws, the right of complainant in the case of injuries, etc., be
protected and various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 be struck down.
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 1 of 18
3. The said writ petition has been filed under the liberty granted,
by the Supreme Court, to do so, vide its order dated 06th December,
2010, in W.P.(C) 469/2009 (Suraz India Trust v. Union of India).
The said order reads as under:
―We have seen the letter sent by the petitioner who was
otherwise appearing in person.
By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the
constitutional validity of the provisions of Sections 47, 128,
195, 340 and 301(1) and 302(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure contending inter alia that the said provisions are
ultra vires and unconstitutional. He requests that an Amicus
Curiae be appointed in this Case. In the interest of justice, Mr.
R. K. Gupta, who is present in the Court today, is appointed
as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. He has taken us through
the petition.
After going through the same, we are of the considered
opinion that the aforesaid relief which the petitioner has
sought for in the Writ Petition in this Court could be the
subject matter of a Writ Petition before the High Court, as the
petitioner has alleged that his legal rights are violated.
In that view of the matter, we dispose of the Writ
Petition with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the High
Court for the same relief by filing an appropriate writ
petition.‖
(Emphasis supplied)
4. After notice was issued by this Court, on 11 th April, 2019, the
attention of this Court was invited to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in a writ petition, preferred by the present petitioner under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India, being Suraz India Trust v.
Union of India, (2017) 14 SCC 416, as it was the contention of
learned counsel for the respondent that, in the light of the said
judgment, the present writ petition could not be entertained. This
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 2 of 18
Court had, therefore, directed the petitioner to show cause as to why
the present writ petition be not dismissed in view of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the petitioner's own case.
5. Suraz India Trust (supra) was a case in which the Supreme
Court noted that the petitioner was an inveterate litigant, who had filed
as many as 64 different proceedings before the Supreme Court,
without being successful in any matter.
6. The Supreme Court also noted the fact that the petitioner had,
earlier, cast serious aspersions against three Hon'ble Judges of the
High Court of Rajasthan besides its Chief Justice and had also issued
notice of contempt to six Judges of the said High Courts besides its
Chief Justice.
7. The following passages, from the judgement of the Supreme
Court in Suraz India Trust (supra), merit reproduction, in extenso:
―7. In order to support the impropriety and wrongfulness
expressed in the letter dated 27-12-2010, Suraz India Trust
had appended a number of enclosures with its above letter
(dated 27-12-2010). One of the letters to which our pointed
attention was drawn had been addressed to Smt. Pratibha Patil
- the then President of India. The subject of the aforesaid
communication reveals, that the same was addressed to the
President of India, besides the Prime Minister of India and the
Chief Justice of India. This course of action had been adopted
according to the petitioner to draw their attention against the
Supreme Court of India, for having acted in contravention of
the law. The opening paragraph of the instant communication
dated 2-11-2009 depicts the crux of the grievance of Suraz
India Trust. The same is reproduced below:
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 3 of 18
―1. That at the very outset, it is humbly submitted
that when a person violates the provisions of the law of
the land, it amounts to civil/criminal wrong, but when
the Courts of law do not follow the provisions of law
enacted for adjudication of the matters of litigants and
commit judicial dishonesty, what is the remedy to such
a victim? Nothing can be more serious than such
judicial dishonesty. There are various orders of courts
and competent authorities in the matters of the
petitioner which are not being complied with resulting
into contempt of court, but to no avail.‖
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Having understood the tenor and text of the grievances
of Suraz India Trust, it is also necessary for us to observe, that
disparaging remarks were contained therein, not only with
reference to Judges of the Rajasthan High Court but also with
reference to Judges of this Court. With reference to the three
Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, besides the Chief Justice,
the views of Suraz India Trust are contained in Para 9 (of the
communication dated 27-12-2010). The same is essential to
understand the tenor of the grievance of the Trust, and is
therefore being extracted hereunder:
―9. That it is humbly submitted that it appears that
the Registrar (Judicial) Shri T. Sivdasan and Assistant
Registrar, PIL (Writ) Shri Vimal Jaitely have come in
rescue of the judiciary of Rajasthan. The petitioner has
filed a Contempt Petition against the then Chief Justice
of Rajasthan Shri Narayan Roy and three Judges of the
Rajasthan High Court which was diarized at Diary No.
28301 of 2010 dated 7-9-2010. But the same is not
being placed before the Bench for its adjudication
deliberately, and possibility of rejection of the same on
technical grounds by the Registry cannot be ruled out,
even when the contempt is said to be committed
against the Court and it is between the Court and the
contemnor. On the one hand, the contempt petition is
not being placed before the appropriate Bench for
adjudication and on the other hand, the Rajasthan High
Court at Jodhpur is not issuing notice even after
hearing the matter various times in Contempt Petition
No. 1 of 2006 (Rajiv Daiya v. Umesh Garg) nor the
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 4 of 18
subordinate judiciary (presently pending before the
Judge, Economic Offences, Jodhpur) is getting
compliance of summons (even after the specific orders
of the High Court in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 626 of
2001, Rajiv Daiya v. State of Rajasthan) which is lying
pending at the stage where it was in the year 1999, nor
anything is being done from the year 2004 in criminal
trial initiated on the complaint of the petitioner side in
Cr. Case No. 210 of 2004 (State v. Chandraveer Singh)
pending before Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 3,
Jodhpur. It can safely be inferred from the above facts
and circumstances that the judiciary of Rajasthan is in
collusion with the Registry of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court which is waiting for end of litigations filed by
the petitioner and pending adjudication before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, so that they can proceed
thereafter in above narrated pending matters and pass
the orders in these cases according to their whims and
fancies. Therefore, these matters are almost kept in
abeyance from last so many years, and nothing is being
done in these cases. This corroborates and supports the
allegations of the petitioner against the High Court of
Rajasthan and its subordinate judiciary so also the
Registry of the Supreme Court which is vehemently
prejudiced against the petitioner.‖
(Emphasis is ours)
9. Insofar as Judges of this Court are concerned, the
position adopted by Suraz India Trust is apparent from the
factual narration recorded in the first enclosure (to the letter
dated 27-12-2010) dated 8-10-2010. The instant
communication dated 8-10-2010 was addressed to Shri T.
Sivdasan, Registrar (Judicial) and Shri Vimal Jaitely,
Assistant Registrar, PIL (Writ). Suraz India Trust in the above
letter indicated the details of various matters in which the
Trust has approached this Court. The remarks with reference
to this Court, were recorded in para 7 thereof which is
reproduced below:
―7. That the applicant apprehended that he cannot
ventilate his grievance against the Justice Imparting
Agency, and therefore, he was hesitant to approach the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is clear from the notice
dated 25-2-2009 (annexed with complaint dated 2-11-
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 5 of 18
2009 at pp. 11 to 13), he had made a specific
submission that he cannot get justice from the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, Paras 1 to 6 of the said notice dated
25-2-2009 are reproduced hereinunder for ready
reference:
―1. That at the very outset, it is humbly
submitted that under the legal framework of the
Constitution, the People of India govern
themselves through the Functionary of
Executive as per the statutory provisions
promulgated under the system as enshrined in
our Constitution, and the judiciary has been
bestowed upon with the power to adjudicate the
disputes and controversies brought before it, as
per the provisions of law. The Supreme Court
and the High Courts under Articles 32 and 226
vest the right to test the legislative law at the
anvil of Chapter III of the Constitution of India
under extraordinary jurisdiction meaning
thereby that the Constitution of India is supreme
in our country, and the Judges and the Chief
Justices of the High Courts take oath to uphold
the Constitution and laws of the land while
entering into their offices.
2. That since the applicant has moved the
Mercy Petition to the Hon'ble President of India
when he has experienced time and again that the
higher judicial officers have come to rescue of
lower judicial officers, and the applicant being
the victim of judicature of Rajasthan as he is
victim of all the tiers of the judiciary of
Rajasthan which includes the Judicial
Magistrate, Assistant Chief Judicial
Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Additional
District Judge/District Judge, Dy.
Registrar/Addl. Registrar, Registrar General,
High Court Judges including Chief Justice, and
with this view, he has not approached the
Hon'ble Supreme Court because there is every
likelihood that now the Hon'ble Supreme Court
may come to rescue of Judicature of Rajasthan.
To make it more clear your attention is drawn
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 6 of 18
that there are three Judges presently holding the
office in the Hon'ble Supreme Court who have
relations not only from Rajasthan but from
Jodhpur, and as experienced so far by the
applicant he has reason to apprehend that he
cannot get justice from the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Taking this view into matter, the
applicant considered it appropriate to make a
complaint in the form of mercy petition so as to
be considered by the Hon'ble President of India
himself being the Appointing and Terminating
Authority and with further view that the
applicant would be provided ample opportunity
of hearing as he has bulky material so as to
prove his contentions by making order for
enquiry as was conducted in the case of Hon'ble
Justice of the Kolkata High Court Shri Somesh
Mitra, and thereafter, the Hon'ble Chief Justice
of India Shri K.G. Balakrishnan has
recommended his case for impeachment.
3. That the applicant has not approached the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on yet another ground
that the applicant sought various information
from the Public Information Officer, Rajasthan
High Court, Jodhpur, wherein there is a non-
responding attitude of the First Appellate
Authority under RTI Act. The applicant moved
to the Hon'ble President of India so that the
record of the High Court may be called that may
prove the contentions of the applicant, so as to
make out he (sic) of contempt of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court with incomplete material in
aforementioned circumstances.
4. That it is out of place to mention here
that the applicant has a reasonable apprehension
that the Ministry of Law and Justice is trying to
suppress the complaint of the applicant so as to
avoid enquiry into the matter allowing the
applicant to put up the material on record as a
piece of evidence. The applicant has
experienced that higher judicial officers have
come in rescue of lower judicial officers, but it
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 7 of 18
is experience for the first time that the President,
Secretariat so also the Ministry of Law &
Justice has come to rescue of the Judiciary
which has drafted the bill for making complaints
against the Judges. Whether the action of
bringing the said bill into Parliament is merely
an illusion?
5. That the notice of contempt petition upon
six Judges of the Rajasthan High Court
including the Chief Justice is merely an iceberg
seen out of the water to your goodself, there is a
very big piece of ice floating beneath the water
surface which has remained unseen and if
comes into limelight, may prove to be
a BURNING SCAM of the country and the name of
your goodself may find place in the pages of
history. Admittedly, neither your goodself nor
the Ministry of Law and Justice is competent to
make any interference in the judiciary which is
clear from the order of dismissal dated 5-2-
2009. Under such circumstances, it is in the
interest of justice that the Mercy Petition dated
29-9-2008 and Complaints dated 14-11-2008
and 22-12-2008 deserve to be either placed
before the Hon'ble President of India for
decision or in the alternative, the same may be
forwarded to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India which is competent to proceed into the
matter under the provisions of Article 129 of the
Constitution of India. In case of any hindrance
and obstruction on your part will certainly
amount to obstruction in administration of
justice and punishable for contempt of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. That it is a case where the faith of the
applicant has been lost in the judiciary/justice-
imparting agency, and it is the pious duty of the
President, Secretariat being the part and parcel
of Parliament to honour the Sovereign of the
Nation ‗We the people of India'. Therefore, the
Mercy Petition dated 29-9-2008, Complaints
dated 14-11-2008 and 22-12-2008 may either be
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 8 of 18
put up before the Hon'ble President of India or
in the alternative to forward the same to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court with the
recommendation to place the same before the
Bench comprising of the Hon'ble Chief Justice
of India he being the head of the Judiciary for
taking such decisions in light of the law laid
down in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India,
(1991) 3 SCC 655 by the Constitution Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the applicant still
remains unheard, the President Secretariat the
more particularly Your Goodself will be solely
responsible for the consequences. The abstract
concerned of the law laid down in K.
Veeraswami is reproduced for ready reference:
(SCC pp. 682-83, para 12)
―12. ... Undoubtedly, respect for the
judiciary and its public credibility and
dignity has to be maintained in order to
ensure respect for the Judges in public
and also for the decisions rendered by the
Judges. ... If these things are allowed to
go unnoticed, it will create a serious
inroad on the dignity, respect, and
credibility and integrity of the high office
which a Judge of the Supreme Court and
of the High Court occupies resulting in
the erosion on the dignity and respect for
the high office of the Judges in the
estimation of the public. As has been
suggested by my learned Brother Shetty,
J. that the President is given the power to
appoint the Judges of the Supreme Court
as well as of the High Court by warrant
under his hand and seal and similarly
even after passing of an address by both
the Houses of Parliament in the manner
provided in Article 124, clauses (4) and
(5) and (sic) placed before the President,
a Judge cannot be removed from his
office unless an order to that effect is
passed by the President. ... In order to
adequately protect a Judge from frivolous
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 9 of 18
prosecution and unnecessary harassment
the President will consult the Chief
Justice of India who will consider all the
materials placed before him and tender
his advice to the President for giving
sanction to launch prosecution or for
filing FIR against the Judge concerned
after being satisfied in the matter.‖
(emphasis is ours)
*****
18. After we declined the request of Mr Rajiv Daiya, to be
provided with professional assistance, he made the required
undertaking, as a last ditch effort ... and as a desperate final
attempt that Suraz India Trust would henceforth not file any
public interest litigation. In other words, he desired us to
accept the liberty which we had afforded to him, at the outset,
after his long-drawn submissions. Mr Rajiv Daiya also
requested us that his statement be so recorded. We have
painstakingly narrated the entire sequence of facts as they
unfolded during the course of hearing. We also hereby record
his undertaking to this Court as he suggested.
*****
21. We find no contradiction in the position expressed
above, and the inference drawn by us. We may only state, that
he may not be in a position to project complicated questions
of law, but he certainly had no difficulty in explaining and
clarifying factual issues. In this context, we find it difficult to
comprehend why the petitioner -Suraz India Trust, had
approached this Court again and again. Mr Rajiv Daiya
personally represented Suraz India Trust, in all court
proceedings. He was individually found to be incompetent to
render assistance, on complicated legal issues. Through the
present writ petition the Trust has prayed for a declaration,
that Section 3 of the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968, be held
unconstitutional, being violative of Article 124(4) of the
Constitution. In the present writ petition it is also the prayer of
the petitioner, that this Court declare, that the provisions of
the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968 are violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution, and as such, the entire enactment be set
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 10 of 18
aside. Why should a Trust be pursuing such a cause? Even if
the prayers made in the petition were to be accepted, who
would benefit therefrom? One would wonder, whether this
petition had been filed bona fide? Or, is this petition a proxy
litigation? For the present consideration, it is not necessary for
us to go into all these questions. But these are certainly issues
of concern, specially when, the same petitioner has been
approaching this Court again and again, always on
complicated legal issues.
*****
24. When the case [Writ Petition (C) No. 204 of 2010] was
heard by the three-Judge Bench on 7-1-2013, the same was
dismissed. The understanding of the petitioner, that the matter
was wrongfully placed before a three-Judge Bench, and
thereafter, was wrongfully dismissed by the three-Judge
Bench, obviously lacks any justification (for the reasons
recorded in the foregoing paragraphs). We are, therefore
satisfied, that the inferences drawn by Mr Rajiv Daiya, were
the result of his lack of maturity and understanding of legal
issues. The observations recorded by this Court (on an earlier
occasion), that Mr Daiya was not competent to assist this
Court on legal issues, is therefore, hereby endorsed.
25. As recently as in January 2017, Suraz India Trust filed
the present Writ Petition (C) No. 880 of 2016 incorporating
the following prayers:
―15. Main prayer
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that by an
appropriate writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:
(a) to declare the provisions of Section 3 of
the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968 as
unconstitutional and void; the same being
inconsistent and in contravention to the
provisions of Article 124(4) of the Constitution
of India;
(b) to strike down the provisions of Section 3
of the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968 being
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 11 of 18
unconstitutional and against the basic structure
of the Constitution;
(c) to declare that provisions of the Judges
(Enquiry) Act, 1968 are in violation of Article
14 of the Constitution of India;
(d) to pass any other order as this Hon'ble
Court may deem just and proper in the interest
of justice in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.‖
We are yet again constrained to observe, why should the Trust
be pursuing such a cause? We would choose to say no more.
26. After Writ Petition (C) No. 204 of 2010 was dismissed
(on 7-1-2013 ), this Court was repeatedly approached by
Suraz India Trust to assail the order dated 7-1-2013 through a
variety of routes, including contempt petitions (fully detailed
above), questioning the legitimacy of listing of the above writ
petition for hearing, before a three-Judge Bench. All these
challenges were impermissible in law. These challenges
completely lacked jurisdiction. The narration recorded
hereinabove, leaves no room for any doubt, that Suraz India
Trust's actions, in repeatedly invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court, were clearly uncalled for. In 64 of the cases, when
Suraz India Trust approached this Court, as per the details
indicated above, it did not find any success whatsoever, and
not a single direction, ever came to be issued by this Court,
out of its repeated endeavours. No one, who does not
understand the nicety of legal issues, as has been
demonstrated by the actions of Suraz India Trust, can be
permitted to endlessly waste the Court's time. The different
contempt petitions filed by Suraz India Trust against a Chief
Justice (whilst he was still in office), and against the Secretary
General of the Supreme Court, amongst others, were wholly
groundless, baseless and ill-founded.
27. The waste of judicial time of this Court, is a matter of
serious concern. The course of action adopted by the
petitioner (despite its alleged, bona fide intention) was not in
consonance with law. When the petitioner did not get the
orders that it hoped for (or, felt it was entitled to), the
petitioner pointedly expressed its anger, towards all and
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 12 of 18
sundry ... and even by name. The petitioner took its
grievance, to the highest executive functionaries in this
country. The petitioner agitated its claim by airing its
grievances to the Chief Justice of India and the Judges of this
Court -- at their private residences. The petitioner aired its
protestation, even against the Secretary General of the
Supreme Court. These officers were targeted because they had
filed/lodged matters filed by Suraz India Trust, for the simple
reason that they were not maintainable. Having considered the
same, we are satisfied that the administrative determination by
officers of the Registry of this Court was fully justified.
28. The posting of a matter filed by the petitioner, by the
then Chief Justice, before a three-Judge Bench was also a
matter which was unnecessarily agitated repeatedly. Even by
filing contempt petitions against the then Chief Justice
himself. Filing contempt petitions, one after the other, on
issues which lacked justification, also highlighted the Trust's
illegitimate misadventures. Mr Rajiv Daiya, appearing for the
petitioner Trust, is an emboldened persona. He has expressed
his ire even against six Judges of the Rajasthan High Court,
including its Chief Justice, and against three Judges of the
Supreme Court, besides its Chief Justice. We are of the view
that all these actions of the petitioner were wholly unjustified.
Mr Rajiv Daiya did not attempt to even make the slightest
effort, to reason out the same, or to demonstrate the veracity
of his actions. Having gone through the hearing, over a length
of time expressed hereinabove, the least we can say is, that the
petitioner has been seriously remiss in his judicial
interventions.
29. Extremely important matters are taken up for
consideration on a daily basis, and they lag behind sometimes,
because individuals who were not competent to assist this
Court, insist without due cause, to be granted a prolonged
hearing. Hearing is sometimes sought (as in the instant case)
even in matters, which the petitioners themselves are
incompetent to understand and handle. All such
misadventures have to be dealt with sternly, so as to prevent
abuse of judicial time. Specially by such individuals, who
freely cast imaginary and scandalous accusations, in making
out their submissions. We could have initiated sterner action
against Mr. Rajiv Daiya for the position canvassed by him,
against the Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, as also of this
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 13 of 18
Court. We, have restrained ourselves from any strong handed
approach just for once. In future, such leniency may not come
by. But this order, should be considered as a warning enough,
for the future.
30. It is however not possible for us, to let off Suraz India
Trust without any remedial consequences, for its filing of
misconceived petitions. We therefore hereby direct, that Suraz
India Trust shall henceforth refrain itself absolutely, from
filing any cause in public interest, before any court in this
country. Similarly, Mr. Rajiv Daiya shall absolutely refrain
himself from filing any cause in public interest, either directly
or through any other individual, hereinafter, in any court. In
all pending matters, whether before this Court or before any
other High Court, which may have been initiated by Suraz
India Trust and/or by Mr. Rajiv Daiya, as a cause in public
interest, it shall be imperative for Suraz India Trust/Mr. Rajiv
Daiya to place the instant judgment/order on the record of the
case, in case the petitioner decides not to withdraw the same
unilaterally.
31. For the judicial time wasted by Suraz India Trust, we
consider it just and appropriate to impose exemplary costs on
it. This is imperative, as it would discourage the instant nature
of indiscretion, not only at the hands of Suraz India Trust, but
also at the hands of other similarly placed individuals, who
may have been emboldened, to adopt the course treaded by
Mr. Rajiv Daiya. The costs imposed on the petitioner are
hereby quantified at Rs. 25 lakhs (Rupees twenty-five lakhs
only). The aforesaid costs shall be deposited by Suraz India
Trust, with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare
Trust, within three months from today. Failing deposit, the
above costs shall be recoverable from Mr. Rajiv Daiya, its
Chairman, through his personal proceeds, if necessary.‖
(Emphasis supplied in part)
8. To a query, by us, as to whether he had complied with the
direction, of the Supreme Court, to pay ₹ 25 lakhs as costs, Mr. Daiya,
who appears in person, submits that the aforesaid judgement, dated 1 st
May, 2017, of the Supreme Court, had not yet attained finality, as he
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 14 of 18
had preferred petitions before the Hon'ble President of India. This
issue, he submits, was still alive in the Supreme Court. He cautioned
us that it would, in fact, be criminally contemptuous, on our part, to
question him in this regard, as it would be amounting to interference
with the proceedings in the Supreme Court.
9. Our research, however, reveals that this is not the position and
that, in fact, MA 507/2017, which was referred, by the petitioner,
seeking modification of the judgement of the Supreme Court, was
dismissed by order dated 5th December, 2017, and, subsequently, on
8th February, 2018, the Supreme Court, noting the fact that the costs of
₹ 25 lakhs, as directed by it, had not been deposited by the petitioner,
despite repeated orders, has gone to the extent of directing its Registry
not to accept any application or petition on behalf of the petitioner, or
Mr. Rajeev Daiya. The order, dated 8th February, 2018, reads thus:
―The petitioner who is appearing in person has not deposited
the costs of ₹ 25,00,000/- in spite of repeated orders. All the
applications and the writ petition are dismissed.
The Registry is directed not to accept any application or
petition on behalf of Suraz India Trust or Mr. Rajiv Daiya.‖
It merits mention, here, that the petitioner has placed, on record, all
other orders passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil)
880/2016, and the various applications filed therein, except for the
above order dated 8th February, 2018, which Mr. Daiya chose to
conceal even during the course of submissions made before us in
Court.
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 15 of 18
10. The petitioner has not chosen to place, on record, Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 469 of 2009, which was filed by him before the Supreme
Court, either. A reading of the order, dated 6th December, 2010 supra,
whereby the Supreme Court disposed of the said writ petition,
however, discloses that the petitioner had, in the said writ petition,
alleged that ―his legal rights‖ were violated. We have gone through
the present writ petition, and do not find even the whisper of an
averment, let alone allegation, regarding violation of any of the rights
of the petitioner, fundamental or otherwise. The writ petition is
founded entirely on hypotheses, assumptions and presumptions,
regarding perceived inaction, on the part of the executive, in coming
to the aid of persons - not one of whom has either been identified or
named - who suffer legal wrongs. The challenge, to the various
provisions of the Cr.P.C., of which the writ petition seeks quashing, is
also founded on hypothetical averments, without a single concrete
instance being highlighted in the entire writ petition. The order, dated
6th December, 2010 supra, passed by the Supreme Court in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 469 of 2009, allowed the petitioner to move this
Court for ventilation of his rights, and not to file yet another public
interest litigation. The petitioner, apparently, initially filed W.P.(C)
8155/2015 and, thereafter, simply withdrew the said writ petition, on
31st August, 2015, ―with liberty to file a fresh writ petition in proper
form and with appropriate relief‖. The averment, in the writ petition,
that the said withdrawal was with liberty to the petitioner to file a
public interest litigation, does not follow from the order dated 31st
August 2015, or elsewhere from the record.
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 16 of 18
11. This Court is not prepared to countenance a public interest
litigation, at the instance of the litigant who is in contempt of the
Supreme Court, and is wilfully defying, with total impunity, the
direction of the Supreme Court, as contained in its judgement dated 1st
May, 2017 supra. We enquired, from the petitioner, as to whether he
intended to comply with the direction, of the Supreme Court, or to pay
the costs as imposed by the judgement dated 1 st May, 2017, as given
the tenor of the said judgement, the observations contained therein
and the purpose of imposing the said costs, we are not convinced that
it would be appropriate for us to entertain the petitioner, or provide an
audience to him, until and unless he complies with the order of the
Supreme Court. Mr. Daiya, however, persisted in his assertion that
the judgement dated 1st May, 2017, had not yet attained finality and
that he was, therefore, not bound to comply therewith.
12. We cannot agree. It is not possible, or proper, for us, to provide
an audience to the petitioner, once the Supreme Court has gone to the
extent of directing the Registry not to entertain any petition, either by
the petitioner or by Mr. Daiya. Article 144 of the Constitution of India
requires all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India, to
act in aid of the Supreme Court. We cannot, therefore, entertain the
petitioner, where the Supreme Court has shut its doors to him, for all
times to come. This, in our view, would fly directly in the face of
Article 144 of the Constitution of India, and would amount to judicial
misadventurism, on our part.
W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 17 of 18
13. We, therefore, decline to entertain the present writ petition
which is, accordingly, dismissed.
14. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 dsn/r.bararia W.P. (C) 10605/2015 Page 18 of 18