Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M. Muthu Kumar vs The Dgp,Chennai on 26 February, 2014
Ò
ITEM NO.14-A COURT NO.14 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2014
CC 3950-3951/2014
(From the judgement and order dated 23/08/2007 in MP No.1/2007,WP
No.27969/2007 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)
M. MUTHU KUMAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE DGP,CHENNAI & ORS Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP)
Date: 26/02/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL
For Petitioner(s)
Ms. A. Sumathi,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
A selection process was conducted for appointment to the post of sub-inspectors of police during the year 1997-1998. The petitioner’s name was not amongst the selected candidates. Be that as it may, it seems that the petitioner continued to make representations, and finally approached the High Court only in 2007, by filing Writ Petition No. 27969 of 2007. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed on 23.08.2007 for reasons of delay and laches.
... contd. 2.
.2.
Unmindful of the fact that the above writ petition was dismissed on 23.08.2007, the instant special leave petition has been filed in 2014. Its listing is based on a special mentioning.
It is necessary to notice that the instant special leave petition came to be filed just about seven years from the dismissal of the writ petition with a delay of 2287 days. We are of the view that the above factual position discloses a clear misuser of the jurisdiction of this Court. We find that the facts of this case demonstrate an absolutely brash attitude at the hands of the petitioner. We, therefore, dismiss the instant special leave petition with cost quantified as Rs.25,000/-. The above cost shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, within two months. In case, the aforesaid cost is not deposited within the time indicated hereinabove, the matter shall be re-listed for motion hearing, for recovery of cost.
[Nidhi Ahuja] [Phoolan Wati Arora] Court Master Assistant Registrar