Delhi HC Imposes Rs. 3-Lakh Costs On Petitioner For Filing Successive Writ Petitions On Same Issue [Read Judgment]

This concept of filing a new writ petition essentially for getting earlier admitted writ petitions heard is an unheard concept and argument and needs to be put down with heavy hands, the Court said.

The Delhi High Court has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 3 lakh on a person who had filed successive writ petitions on the same issue, for getting earlier admitted writ petitions heard.

Justice Valmiki Mehta came down heavily on one SN Sahu, who filed his sixth writ petition against Rajya Sabha Secretariat seeking cancellation of the appointments of two persons as Additional Secretaries of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat.

The court held that the present writ petition seeking reliefs in the nature of quo warranto is not maintainable because there is no pleading in the writ petition as to which statutory provision is violated in the appointments. It also observed that relief of writ of certiorari was denied as the petitioner did not seek his own appointment, but only sought quashing of some appointments.

Noting the successive writ petitions were filed on the same facts and causes of action, the court observed: “This concept of filing a new writ petition essentially for getting earlier admitted writ petitions heard is an unheard concept and argument and needs to be put down with heavy hands. Petitioner cannot expect that there is only one case of his in this court for being decided and this court does not have cases of hundreds and thousands of other petitioners who are silently waiting for their turn in queue for their cases to be heard on merits.”

Dismissing the writ petition, the court said, “This writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 3 lakh noting that the petitioner has enough money for filing sequential judicial proceedings in this court”.

Read the Judgment here.

This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.

Got Something To Say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

*

  • Jeet says:

    This is a bad Judgment both on facts & law. This Judgment creates a serious doubt about the fairness of this court n caused trust deficit.

    6th writ petition (service matter) was filed not on the same issue but on different cause of actions oppressively mounted by the Rajya Sabha against its employee in gross overreach of the court’s jurisdiction. Besides these numbers of writ petitions are also due to the courts earlier direction n it’s inaction to redress the earlier grievances leaving the aggrieved to suffer more at the hands of the employer.

    It is the same court on 19.11.2016 admitted two writ petitions, one of which prematurely, putting it to regular hearing along with all its interim application without any deliberation on merit. This court on 25.11.2016 first threatened with contempt the petitioner without any deliberation n put the matter for hearing on 29.11.2016. But on 29.11.2016 rather raised the issue of maintainability yet went beyond its pleadings. It is interesting to note that the court based its argument on para-1, which is an incorrect representation thereof. At no point it was the case of the petitioner that all earlier writ petitions be treated as nullify. It was the grouse of the petitioner that the respondents acting contemptuously as if earlier writ petitions are nullity.

    What is ironic is court spent above 1 hour on 29.11.2016 to discuss maintainability n spent about 20m on 25.11.2016 threatening with contempt but could have used this precious time to decide merit of all the 6 matters n reduced the courts burden. Petitioner, being bullied by the respondents all through the 6 writ petitions, is only asking for a 60m hearing on merit to dispose of all his petitions n bring much needed respite n closure to all including the courts previous time. To his ill luck the same is not forthcoming.

    And now this order n cost of 3Lakh, which will only multiply the agony of all the players including the court’s precious time. How legal this order will certainly be decided by appropriate forum but the larger question is, are we paying tax to get a system like this where there is no accountability n no predictavikity?

Top