- (1.) IN Writ Petition No. 35956 of 1992, the petitioner prayed for a relief that the petitioner should be provided with the highest Z plus security failing which the Central Government, the State Government, I.A.S. and I.P.S. officers will neither permit the petitioner to approach the court and will get the petitioner killed by entangling the petitioner in some offence. The second relief prayed was that in accordance with the consti tutional machinery of the country, the petitioner is praying to the Court that respondents may be asked to explain their encounter policy and facts in the said regard may be fully looked into. The third relief claimed in the petition was that an enquiry be conducted by a Judicial Officer regarding all the cases pending against the petitioner. IN support of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner filed an affidavit.
(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 37064 of 1992, the Home Secretary, Uttar Pradesh? the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh and S.S.P. Kanpur City, Kanpur were arrayed as respondents and a relief was prayed that in presence of some Judicial Officer, the petitioner be permitted to run his business of Scooter Stand and publication of 'Kanpur Crime Reporter' or the officers, who are indulging in violating the honour of the Court and are professionally humiliating the Court should be directed to ensure continu ance of the petitioner's aforesaid business. Second relief prayed in this petition was that the petitioner should be permitted in accordance with the concept of equality provided in the INdian Constitution to earn money by killing people for which the petitioner is competent and which the petitioner has proved by standing in the Court on 15th October, 1992 that the peti tioner is capable of doing the same as has been done by the police by killing 20,000 people and thereby earning money or getting money on the basis of arranging these murders. Special relief prayed in the petition was that the Hon'ble Court may pass such orders against such professional killers so that they may realise that the judiciary of the country has its own honour and the persons INdulging in deteriorating the said honour are not to be spared as has been done by Calcutta High Court in its decision reported in AIR 1992 Cal 105 holding that the Court cannot be spectator of permitting anybody to do wrong. The reliefs prayed for are in a very peculiar and vague words and do not make out any sense as to what the petitioner prayed for. However, the aforesaid writ petitions were registered as Criminal Misc. Writ Petition in this Court and notices were issued to the respondents to file their counter-affidavits. Both the matters have been heard together for a long period of four years by different Courts and the petitioner's conduct Is mainly responsible for this inordinate delay in deciding the case as whenever a court wanted to hear the matter, the petitioner had been indulging in making baseless and false allegations not only against the Judges of this Court but also against the Chief Justice of this Court and entire Judicial system and Indulging himself even In abusing the Judges, Chief Justice of this Court as well as the Apex Court. The petitioner had also throughout been moving one application of the other making several grievances during the pendency of the matter and on above application the Court asked for a counter-affidavit, the bulk of the case at present is con tained in hundreds of pages, the details whereof, in short, will be given hereinafter.
(3.) BEFORE proceeding with the applications and affidavits which the petitioner has been filing from time to time, it is necessary to mention the contents of the petitions themselves. In Writ Petition No. 35956 of 1992, the petitioner stated that Annexures '1' and '2'of the petition may be looked into. Annoxure '1' to the petition is a Criminal Misc. Petition filed by the petitioner in the Supreme Court being Criminal Misc. Petition No. 32993 of 1984 in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 99102 of 1988. In this Criminal Petition also, the petitioner made allegations that the police are murdering persons in the shape of encounters to earn money and they themselves create terrorism and conditions for victimising the people. It was also alleged that the police also murder people who oppose their policies and implicate them in false cases and destroy the life of those persons and their families. In this cate gory, he claimed himself to be a glaring example of victimisation. The application further referred that despite the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mokherji on 13-1-1984, to provide the petitioner a security guard, the security guard has pot been provided. A request was made in this application that the petitioner be provided with the security guard for the safety of the petitioner's life. This application is dated 31-1-1984. Annexure'2' to the petition is a Question narie which has been filed by the petitioner making allegations against the police that they are indulging in getting murders done and the questions were framed as to whether the Constitution permits a police officer to kill people for money.;