Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ranbir Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 7 January, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO…………OF 2026
(Arising out of Diary No.65862 of 2025)
RANBIR SINGH … Petitioner(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. …Respondent(S)
ORDER
1. Delay in refiling the present petition is condoned.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue an appropriate Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the respondents to comply with the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.A1789 of 2022 in letter and spirit, granting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Deputy Collector w.e.f. 23.08.2018 with consequential benefits;
(ii) Issue an appropriate Writ of Mandamus or Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by any other appropriate writ, order or direction to ANITA MALHOTRA the respondents to grant another promotion to Date: 2026.01.10 12:08:55 IST Reason:
the petitioner, elevating him in the grade pay 1 ₹6,600/- in pay scale 67,700 – 2,08,700 (pay matrix 11) with effect from 26.09.2023 with consequential benefits as granted to officers junior to the petitioner;
(iii) Grant any other further relief as deemed fit in the interest of justice.”
3. A perusal of the aforesaid prayers shows that the direction has been sought for the compliance of order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the High Court 1 in Writ A. No.1789 of 2022 and direction for grant of promotion. It is evident from the pleadings that much water had been flown thereafter. A fresh Writ Petition bearing Writ A. No.45 of 2024, challenging a subsequent order dated 12.10.2023 passed against the petitioner is pending consideration before the High Court. It is the case of the petitioner in the pleadings that the aforesaid order has been passed in furtherance to the order passed in Writ A. No.1789 of 2022, earlier filed by the petitioner.
4. Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, the present petition being totally frivolous, deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. 1 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 2
5. However, considering the conduct of the petitioner, we propose to impose cost on him for unnecessarily choking the dockets of this Court. 5.1 Earlier, a petition bearing SLP(Civil)No.4498 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner impugning order dated 18.01.2024 passed in W.A.No.45 of 2024 by the High Court. While refusing permission to withdraw that petition, the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2024 imposing a token cost of ₹1,00,000/-. The order passed therein is extracted below :
“1. After arguing for some time, when we were inclined to dismiss the petition, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the petition.
2. We are not inclined to grant the permission, inasmuch as the present petition is nothing else but an abuse of process of law.
3. This special leave petition challenges the order dated 18.01.2024, vide which after finding some merit in the case of the petitioner, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has issued notice and directed the matter to be posted in the week commencing 08.04.2024.3
4. It can thus be seen that there is no order passed by the High Court with which the petitioner ca be said to be aggrieved. On the contrary, the order impugned herein is in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as the High Court has specifically observed that the matter requires consideration and had issued notice.
5. We have come across several such matters, wherein the special leave petitions are filed either against the order seeking adjournment or the order issuing notices or grant/refusal of interim protections.
6. As we observed in one of our orders (SLP(C) No.19043/2022 - Mohan Chandra P. v.
The State Of Karnataka and Ors.) that the Advocate(s)-on-Record are not only the postmen of the litigants, they are also an officer of the Court and owe responsibility towards the system. Filing of such petitions not only wastes the time of the Court but it also puts unnecessary burden on the Courts and adds up to the pendency of matters before the Courts.
7. The designated senior counsel owe greater responsibility as an officer of the Court.
8. We, therefore, in order to send a 4 message to the Advocate(s)-on-Record and the learned senior counsel/counsel appearing in such matters, are inclined to dismiss this petition with a token cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), which shall be paid within a period of two weeks from today. Ordered accordingly.
9. Out of the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- is to be paid to the Supreme Court Bar Association, which shall be used for Library purpose and Rs.50,000/- be paid to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association, to be used for the purpose of advocate welfare.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
6. Considering the conduct of the petitioner again and also the facts that he is represented by the same counsel, we impose cost of ₹5,00,000/- on him.
7. Out of the aforesaid cost, ₹2,50,000/- be deposited with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund, ₹1,25,000/- be deposited with the Supreme Court Bar Association and the remaining ₹1,25,000/- be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association. The needful shall be done upto 16.02.2026. 5 7.1 The account details of the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund is mentioned hereinbelow :
Name of Armed Forces Battle Casualties Fund Welfare Fund Bank Name Canara Bank Branch South Block, Defence Headquarters, New Delhi – 110011 IFSC Code CNRB0019055 Account No. 90552010165915
8. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Adjutant General’s Branch, Ceremonial & Welfare Directorate on email ID [email protected], Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
……............................J. (RAJESH BINDAL) ……............................J. (VIJAY BISHNOI) NEW DELHI;
January 07, 2026.
6
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.14 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 65862/2025 RANBIR SINGH Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION IA No. 335839/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS IA No. 335838/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 07-01-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI For Petitioner(s) :
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivam Batra, AOR For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in refiling the present petition is condoned. The Writ Petition is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application shall also stand disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (AKSHAY KUMAR BHORIA)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file.)s 7