Admitted pending petitions not become non-existent or nullity by filing fresh writ. The Idea of filing fresh petition to get earlier admitted writs petitions heard rejected by High Court
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 1074 (2016) (12) HC
Important Case Laws cited:
B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Assn. and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 731(2)
Rajesh Awasthi Vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal & Others (2013) 1 SCC 501
Centre for PIL and Another Vs. Union of India and Another, (2011) 4 SCC 1;
State of Punjab Vs. Salil Sabhlok and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 1
N. Kannadasan Vs. Ajoy Khose and Others, (2009) 7 SCC
In the present writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Through the petition, relief of cancellation of two appointments to the post of Additional Secretaries of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat wa sought by the Petitioner.
It was found that the present writ petition was the sixth writ petition filed by the petitioner which was effectively against the same main respondent being his employer, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat.
In the present writ order or direction in the nature of quo warranto, certiorari and mandamus was sought from the High Court.
Observations made by the High Court:
Reliefs in the nature of quo warranto
The High Court observed that the writ petition seeking reliefs in the nature of quo warranto was not maintainable because there was no pleading in the writ petition as the violation of any statutory provisions or statutory rules.
Direction in the nature of certiorari
The High Court opined that petitioner cannot be granted the relief of writ of certiorari for quashing of the said appointments because the petitioner had not sought his own appointment but only quashing thereof. Thus the petitioner lacked locus standi to question the appointments by way of the present writ petition and the only remedy of the petitioner was to file a Public Interest Litigation.
Direction in the nature of mandamus
The High Court stated that this prayer in the writ petition was related to the first two prayers and that third prayer also stood disposed of in terms of the preceding two prayers which were rejected.
Abuse of Process of Law by filing repeated petitions on same set of facts
The High Court observed that the present writ petition was an abuse of the process of law as the petitioner was filing repeated writ petitions on essentially the same set of facts. The Court opined that the present writ petition was therefore liable to be dismissed as there could not be repeated litigations on the set of facts and which are essentially the same causes of action which are the subject matter of earlier pending writ petitions.
Filing sixth writ petition treating the five earlier writ petitions as non-existent and nullity
The Hon’ble High Court noted that petitioner had stated that the sixth writ petition was filed before the Court treating the five earlier writ petitions as non-existent and nullity. However the Court stated that there is no such law that earlier writ petitions which are pending and admitted for hearing can become non-existent and nullity. According to the Court, if the petitioner had no intention to pursue the five earlier writ petitions, the petitioner could have always filed an application for withdrawal of the same.
Out of turn hearing of the petition
The High Court observed that the counsel for the petitioner vociferously argued that all the earlier writ petitions must be forthwith heard by the Court and which according to the Court was actually the main grievance of the petitioner. The Court expressed anguish on that the writ petitions should not be heard in their turn and that people who have been standing in queue for hearing of their writ petitions should not be heard in their turn when their writ petitions come up for hearing in the Regular Matters and that the present petitioner’s writ petitions though of later years must be given out of turn hearing.
According to the Court, the concept of filing a new writ petition essentially for getting earlier admitted writ petitions heard was an unheard concept and argument and needs to be put down with heavy hands. The Court came down heavily on the petitioner in expecting that there was only his case in the Court for being decided and the Court does not have cases of hundreds and thousands of other petitioners who were silently waiting for their turn in queue for their cases to be heard on merits.
The present writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.3 lacs