Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: "(i) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.2.2018, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur. (ii) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide revision within time bound passed in Revision No. 909 of 2017-18, Ram Dulare Vs. Raj Pati."
(2.) The Deputy Director, Consolidation on 12.2.2018 has entertained the revision of the contesting respondents and granted an interim order fixing 28.2.2018 for objections. Aggrieved by the said order present petition has been preferred.
(3.) In my opinion the writ petition is totally frivolous as it is against an interim order passed by the D.D.C.. The Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others, 2014 8 SCC 470 has taken a judicial note that huge number of frivolous petitions are choking roaster of the courts. The Supreme Court put a note of caution that the High Courts should discourage such type of litigation and should impose heavy costs. In the case of Phool Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2014 13 SCC 112 the Supreme Court has held that the High Courts should curb the tendency of filing frivolous writ petitions by imposing heavy costs on the petitioners and the advocates too. Relevant part of the judgment in Phool Chandra is extracted below: "12. All these are aberrations in the functioning of the Apex Court of any country. Of late, there has been an increase in the trend of litigants rushing to the courts, including this Court, for all kinds of trivial and silly matters which results in wastage of public money and time. A closer scrutiny of all such matters would disclose that there was not even a remote justification for filing the case. It is a pity that the time of the court which is becoming acutely precious because of the piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such matters. There is an urgent need to put a check on such frivolous litigation. Perhaps many such cases can be avoided if the learned counsel who are officers of the court and who are expected to assist the court tender proper advice to their clients. The Bar has to realise that the great burden upon the Bench of dispensing justice imposes a simultaneous duty upon them to share this burden and it is their duty to see that the burden should not needlessly be made unbearable. The Judges of this Nation are struggling bravely against the odds to tackle the problem of dispensing quick justice. But, without the cooperation of the gentlemen of the Bar, nothing can be done. 13. It is high time that the courts should come down heavily upon such frivolous litigation and unless we ensure that the wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigation. In order to curb such kind of litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive which can be ensured by imposing exemplary costs upon the parties as well as on the learned counsel who act in an irresponsible manner. {Vide Varinderpal Singh v. M.R. Sharma, 1986 Supp1 SCC 719, Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, 2011 8 SCC 249, and Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Khazani, 2012 8 SCC 781.}";