Madhya Pradesh High Court
K.N. Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 November, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 382 of 2021
(K.N. SHUKLA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 23-11-2022
Shri S.D. Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Thakur - Government Advocate for respondent no.1.
The petitioner seeks the following reliefs :-
"(i) Issue Writ direction / Order to comply with all the orders of the Hon'ble Court.
(ii) Issue necessary suitable Writ / Order or Direction to the State Government to retire the Petitioner forthwith because Constitution prohibits retrospective retirement.
(iii) Annexure -P/2 issued by Respondent No.3 is document of practicing Begar and forfeits pay from 04.03.2003 therefore, writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to make payments immediately to avoid starvation death.
(iv) That Hon'ble High Court may also further be pleased to recall punitive and stigmatic order of treating the period spanning from 04.03.2003 to 30.04.2011 as dies non, since law prohibits dies non without DE.
(v) That Hon'ble High Court may further be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay 18% interest on all retirement dues, as per constitutional mandate.
(vi) Since Constitution prohibits recovery from retiral benefit therefore respondents may kindly be directed to refrain from recovering any amount from retirement dues."
2. It is fundamentally opposed by the learned Government Advocate by placing reliance on the Division Bench order of this Court dated 07.08.2014 passed in W.P. No.5437 of 2005 and connected matters. A detailed order was passed by the Bench. Various observations were made by the learned Division Bench. A part of the extracted portion of the order is as follows:-
"Although, we are more than convinced that the petitioner Signature Not Verified SAN has abused the process of Court and has resorted to vexatious Digitally signed by REENA HIMANSHU and frivolous litigation, resulting in colossal waste of Court's SHARMA Date: 2022.11.25 16:37:54 IST time, but, as aforesaid, we refrain from imposing exemplary cost 2 with a hope that the petitioner will refrain from indulging in such misadventure hereafter. However, if this very petitioner resorts to any further or other proceedings for similar reliefs, the Registry shall not register the same unless it is accompanied with approval given by the Advocate General to institute the same. We are issuing this direction in lieu of not proceeding against the petitioner for having committed criminal contempt and including criminal action because of his conduct and wasting invaluable time of the Court.
Shri V. Jayaraman, Advocate for the petitioner, in W.P.No.15339/2012, inspite of this observation has the audacity to say that he may advice the petitioner to file review petition.
If such review petition or for that matter, any other proceeding is filed by the petitioner for similar relief, we may consider of imposing exemplary cost. In the peculiar facts of this case, we direct that any fresh proceeding to be filed by this petitioner for similar reliefs including review petition, that will be entertained by the Registry only if the petitioner deposits sum of Rs.10 Lacs in the Court as condition precedent for its registration. We are conscious that this condition will be prohibitive one but we do so because this petitioner in the past has filed more than fifty petitions for similar reliefs.
Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that in addition to the petitions already disposed of today, there are some more petitions filed by the same petitioner seeking similar reliefs, which have already been considered and answered today by this order. He undertakes to furnish list of all the remaining cases by day after tomorrow i.e. 09.08.2014.
List all those matters on Tuesday (12.8.2014) under caption "Directions" for formal disposal in the light of the order passed today.
Copy of this order be forwarded to the office of the Advocate General, State of M.P., for information and necessary action."
3. The petitioner's counsel submits that he is aware of this order. Even then he is trying to contend on merits. The order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case is clear. Firstly, that the Registry shall not register any case unless it is accompanied with the approval of the Advocate General. That if any fresh proceeding is Signature Not Verified to be filed including the review petition, the Registry would entertain the same only if SAN Digitally signed by REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Date: 2022.11.25 16:37:54 IST the petitioner deposits Rs.10 Lakhs as a condition precedent for its registration. In 3 spite of such directions being issued, the petitioner once again filed this petition. Therefore, we are of the prima facie view that the petitioner has committed a gross contempt of Court as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
4. Hence, notice is issued to the petitioner as to why proceedings for criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated against him.
5. Petitioner to submit his reply in fifteen days.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
rv
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by REENA HIMANSHU
SHARMA
Date: 2022.11.25 16:37:54 IST