Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India on 16 March, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari, Vikram Nath
1
ITEM NO.1 Court 14 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 3571/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-02-2022
in WPC No. 2886/2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi)
SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.29668/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT )
Date : 16-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Md. Azam Ansari, AOR
Md. Ashfaque Ansari, Adv.
Mohd. Shahnawaz Alam, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Pankaj Mendiratta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We have expressed serious reservations in the attempt on the part of the petition at gross abuse of the process of law by moving a writ petition in the High Court and seeking such relief which had otherwise not been granted in a revision petition pending in the High Court.
Signature Not Verified
Upon our expressing reservations thus, learned counsel for Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2022.03.16 the petitioner, after attempting to argue for sometime, now 19:13:00 IST Reason:
seeks permission to withdraw.2
Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the material available on record, we have declined the prayer for withdrawal.
The sum and substance of the matter is that the petitioner is involved in a family dispute involving his wife. As regards the dispute concerning the claim of maintenance by the wife, there had been long drawn proceedings, which culminated in the order dated 04.08.2021 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, South Saket where the following directions came to be issued:-
“(a) An amount of Rs. 10,000/- be attached from the pension of the respondent and a cheque/DD in the name of “Saket Welfare Bar Association” for the said amount be sent to this court.
(b) The account of the respondent in the Canara Bank as well as the State Bank of India, as mentioned in the application, be attached and the amount to the tune of Rs. 20,90,000/- or if the amount is lesser than that in the said accounts, the same be released in favour of the petitioner.
(c) The employer of the respondent be directed to release 2/3rd of the pension in the account of the petitioner from the next month of the issuing cheque in the name of “Saket Welfare Bar Association”.
(d) Reference be made to High Court of Delhi under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971.” The petitioner’s approach has further led to the Court passing another order on the even date rejecting the petitioner’s application with costs of Rs. 25,000/-, to be deposited with Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.
On our query, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that such amount of costs has not been deposited because the order has been challenged in the revision petition. 3
The petitioner has filed a Criminal Revision Petition bearing No. 283 of 2021 against the aforesaid order dated 04.08.2021 which remains pending. No stay order having been passed therein, the petitioner filed SLP(Crl.) No. 7734 of 2021 in this Court. We had expressed reservations in entertaining the said petition in relation to the interlocutory orders, whereupon learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw with liberty to approach the High Court. While granting such permission, the said SLP was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.10.2021.
Thereafter, on 28.10.2021, in the said revision petition, the High Court impleaded the Bank and the petitioner’s erstwhile employer as respondents and notices were issued on the applications seeking directions for release of pension. The petitioner also appears to have made representations to the Bank for releasing his pension and served a notice/representation on 21.01.2022, inter alia, stating the hardships being faced by him and his 87-year-old mother due to complete stoppage of pension.
With the aforesaid background and with reference to his representations made to the Bank, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in the High Court, being W.P.(C) No. 2886 of 2022. The High Court took note of all the background facts and found the writ petition to be a gross abuse of the process of law and dismissed the same while observing, inter alia, as under: -
“12. This Court is of the view that the present writ 4 petition is a gross abuse of the process of law as despite agitating its grievance in the Criminal Revision Petition No. 283 of 2021, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is also an attempt on the part of the Petitioner to multiply the proceedings to delay/avoid making payment of maintenance to his wife and children in compliance with the order passed by the Family Court.” The aforesaid order is sought to be questioned by the petitioner on a variety of grounds and, inter alia, with the submissions that as per the Pension Act and the Pension Regulations as also Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the entire pension cannot be attached and that the petitioner and his mother are suffering extreme hardships.
A perusal of the record makes it more than clear that the petitioner, rather than respecting the process of law and complying with the requirements of the orders passed by the competent Court, is only seeking to multiply the litigation. In any case, when a revision petition questioning the order of attachment of pension is pending in the High Court, an attempt to seek an interim order against attachment by way of a parallel writ petition could have only been disapproved, as being fundamentally misconceived.
As regards the conduct, a reference has already been made under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the petitioner had also been penalised for moving frivolous applications. It seems that nothing has any impact on the petitioner, who has again approached this Court on baseless grounds. We are constrained to observe that the only error in the order impugned had been that the Division Bench of the High 5 Court did not dismiss the baseless writ petition filed by the petitioner with exemplary costs. We propose to do so now.
Therefore, while dismissing this petition seeking special leave to appeal, the impugned order passed by the High Court is modified in the manner that the writ petition in the High Court, being W.P.(C) No. 2886 of 2022, as filed by the petitioner, shall stand dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh), to be deposited by the petitioner in the account of State Legal Services Authority, Delhi. The payment of this amount of costs shall be a condition precedent for the petitioner making any submissions in the pending revision petition.
However, if the petitioner makes such payment of costs and makes submissions in accordance with law, we would request the High Court to examine his case on merits while leaving aside the shortcomings in the conduct of the petitioner.
This petition stands dismissed subject to the requirements and observations foregoing.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
(SHRADDHA MISHRA) (RANJANA SHAILEY) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)