9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order of third respondent dated 30-6-2004; Abuse of process of court in filing writ petition against non-existent order; Justification for filing writ petition; Obtaining interim direction by abusing court process. Analysis: The writ petition was filed to challenge the order of the third respondent dated 30-6-2004, seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for the issuance of necessary certificates to procure LSHS under an exemption. The petitioner had earlier appealed to the Appellate Authority, which remanded the matter back to the third respondent. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, citing no other efficacious remedy. The counter affidavit by respondents argued that the writ petition was against a non-existent order, as further appeals were pending before CESTAT. The learned Standing Counsel contended that the writ petition was an abuse of court process, filed solely for obtaining an interim direction. The petitioner's justification for the writ petition was based on the inaction of the third respondent after remand. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had not taken steps to expedite the matter or obtain certificates for LSHS procurement. The Court emphasized that filing a writ petition against a non-existent order was a serious matter and should not be condoned. The Court found that the petitioner had contradicted their own claims regarding alternative remedies and had obtained interim benefits through the writ petition. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000 to be deposited to "The Chief Justice Relief Fund" within two weeks. The respondents were permitted to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law, considering the dismissal of the writ petition. The Court closed the connected petitions related to the matter. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition due to abuse of court process, lack of justification, and contradictory claims by the petitioner. The judgment highlighted the seriousness of filing petitions against non-existent orders and emphasized the importance of upholding legal procedures and remedies.
|
