Supreme Court of India
Ajit Prasad Gupta vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 10 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3425, 1997 (6) SCC 279, 1997 AIR SCW 3508, 1997 ALL. L. J. 2017, (1997) 6 JT 593 (SC), 1997 (2) UJ (SC) 456, 1997 (6) JT 593, 1997 ALL CJ 2 1323.1, 1998 (1) SERVLJ 60 SC, 1997 ALL CJ 1323, (1997) 3 RAJ LW 363, (1997) 5 SCALE 40, (1997) 6 SUPREME 505, (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1666, (1997) 77 FACLR 290, (1997) 4 SERVLR 641, (1997) 3 SCT 556, 1997 SCC (L&S) 1446
Author: K. T. Thomas
Bench: K. T. Thomas
PETITIONER: AJIT PRASAD GUPTA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/07/1997 BENCH: A. S. ANAND, K. T. THOMAS ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R This case has been called even after the list is revised, but nobody appears.
A perusal of the writ petition shows that filling of this petition is total abuse of the process of this court. The petitioner, whose services were terminated on 5.1.1982, questioned the order of termination through writ petition No. 9484/74, which was dismissed by the High Court on 23.8.1974. He allowed that order to acquire finality and lateron filed a representation against termination of his services to the State which was also dismissed on 16.9.1975. Undeterred, he once again questioned the order of termination by filing a petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. That petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. That petition came to be dismissed on 4.4.1979. The petitioner filed yet another writ petition No. 4536/79, for the same cause which was dismissed by the High Court on 16.8.1979. A review petition against that order was dismissed on 16.1.1980 and an application under Article 133 of the Constitution for a certificate of fitness seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed by the High Court on 26.3.1980. The petitioner filed special leave petition No. 536/81 which came to be dismissed by this writ petition putting the same termination order in issue. We take a serious view of the matter and condemn this practice of filing petition after petition. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on court time and public money in order to get the affair settled in the manner he wishes. Finality of judicial proceedings must he accepted at some in the manner it has been done by the petitioner in this case. We dismiss this writ petition with Rs. 5,000/- as costs. The costs shall be deposited with the Registry, within eight weeks, in the account of Supreme Court Legal Service Authority.