Decided on February 08,2018

Mr. Ulhas T. Naik, Advocate Practicing In High Court And Residing At 19B/3, "Takshila" Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai Appellant
The Honble President Of India Respondents


M. Borde, J. - (1.) The instant Petition, presented by an Advocate, practicing in this Court, seeking a writ of quo warranto, questioning the appointment of Respondent No. 7 as an additional Judge of the Bombay High Court, is an instance of blatant abuse of the process of the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra, (2007) 14 SCC 281 has observed in paragraph No. 12, which is equally applicable to the instant Petition, we quote- "10.......12. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy, whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to death facing and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffing their 1(2007) 14 SCC 281 faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.
(2.) In the matter of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (1) SCC 590 the Hon'ble the Supreme Court cautioned the Courts to look into the Petition carefully and ensure that there is a genuine public interest involved in the case before invoking its jurisdiction. The Court should be careful to ensure that its jurisdiction is not abused by a person or body of persons to further his or their personal causes or to satisfy his or their personal grudge or grudges. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
(3.) In the instant matter, the Petitioner has on oath made unsubstantiated allegations, concerning the integrity and suitability of Respondent No. 7 to occupy Constitutional Office as the Judge of the High Court. Apart from making callous and reckless allegations, the Petitioner also makes factually and intentionally incorrect statement 2(2005) 1 SCC 590 on oath that Respondent No. 7 was compulsorily retired while functioning as a District Judge and as such, is ineligible for being appointed as a Judge of the High Court. We have verified the original records and it is noticed by us that Respondent No. 7 had tendered his resignation of the post of Judge, City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay to the Registrar General, High Court at Bombay on 1 August, 2006. It was reported by the Registry that there were no dues payable by Respondent No. 7, nor there was any departmental proceeding pending against him. The High Court recommended to the Government of Maharashtra to accept the letter of resignation and in pursuance of such recommendation, the State of Maharashtra, by an order dated 4 September 2006, accepted the resignation tendered by Respondent No. 7 from the date of the service of the decision of the State Government on Respondent No. 7. It is, thus, clear that Respondent No. 7 had, in fact, tendered his resignation, which was accepted by the State. While arguing the Petition, the counsel for the Petitioner, was asked whether he is aware of this fact and as to whether he can substantiate his contention that Respondent No. 7 has been compulsorily retired, the counsel appearing for the Petitioner clearly admitted that he does have any information, nor can disclose a source of his information as regards statement made in the Petition that Respondent No. 7 has been compulsorily retired. On the contrary, it is also admitted by the Counsel appearing in the matter, that he has knowledge that Respondent No. 7 has tendered his resignation, which has been accepted by the State Government.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.