A
AJIT PRASAD GUPTA
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
JULY 10, 1997
B
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.]
Co11stitutio11 of India, 1950 : Article 32
Writ petition-Abuse of process of Cowt--lmposition of costs f01~Ter-
C 111inatio11 of se1vices of petiti01w~Wlit petition challenging the orde1~Dis
missal of writ by High Court-Thereafter petitioner filed petition after petition
questioning the tennination orde1~Dismissal of SLP by Supreme Cowt--1-Viit
filed thereafter-Practice of filing petition after petition co11demned-Held 110
litigant has light to unlimited drought on Court time-Finality of judicial
proceedings must be accepted at some state-Writ petition dismissed with
D costs.
E
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No ....... (D.
21228/96).
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
De basis Misra for the Petitioner. (NP)
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This case has been called even after the list is revised, but nobody
F appears.
A perusal of the writ petition shows that filing of this petition is a
total abuse of the process of this Court. The petitioner, whose services were
terminated on 5.1.1972, questioned the order of termination through writ
petition No. 9484/74, which was dismissed by the High Court on 23.8.1974.
G He allowed that order to acquire finality and later on filed a representation
against termination of his services to the State which was also dismissed on
16.9.1975. Undeterred, he once again questioned the order of termination
by filing a petition before the U .P. Public Service Tribunal. That petition
came to be dismissed on 4.4.1979. The petitioner filed yet another writ
H petition No. 4536/79, for the same cause which was dismissed by the High
258
(
AP. GUPTA v. STATE
259
Court on 16.8.1979. A review petition against that order was dismissed on A
16.1.1980 and an application under Article 133 of the Constitution for a
certificate of fitness seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was
dismissed by the High Court on 26.3.1980. The petitioner filed special leave
petition No. 536/81 which came to be dismissed by this Court on 13.2.1981.
The petitioner has now filed yet another writ petition putting the same B
termination order in issue. We take a serious view of the matter and
condemn this practice of filing petition after petition. No litigant has a right
to unlimited drought on court time and public money in order to get the
affair settled in the manner he wishes. Finality of judicial proceedings must
.be accepted at some stage. We cannot allow the process of the court to be
abused in the manner it has been done by the petitioner in this case. We C
dismiss this writ petition with Rs. 5,000 as costs. The costs shall be
deposited with the Registry, within eight weeks, in the account of Supreme
Court Legal Services Authority.
T.N.A
Petition dismissed.
Lex