9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e; 3. To Direct Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs to prohibit Vinod Dhall and K K Sharma and/or any other former/retired Member to practice before CCI (act/appear/plead) and/or represent any party in any way; 4. To Direct Secretary Ministry of Corporate Affairs to take action in accordance with Sec 12 of Competition Act for removal of Chairperson and all Members of CCI in accordance with Sec 11(2)(d) and Sec 11(2)(e) and investigate the assets of each of the Members and the Chairperson and whether they are proportionate to their known sources of income; 5. take such other steps as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to protect and preserve nobility of profession of law; 6. allow the cost of petition to petitioner." Having gone through the averments in the petition and the material placed on record, we have queried the petitioner, appearing in person, about his profession, to which the petitioner has pointed out, though not stated in the petition, that he is a practising Surgeon, serving in St. John's Medical College, Koramangala, Bengaluru. The petitioner would submit that there are several illegalities and irregularities in the conduct of matters in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks to further submit that appearance of the aforesaid persons before the Competition Commission and the Competition Appellate Tribunal is established by the orders passed by the Commission. The petitioner has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India [2012] 35 STT 350 to submit that the person having connectivity with the particular Court/Tribunal/Authority, for having been an officer therein, is debarred from practicing before the same Court/Tribunal/ Authority. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the record, we are clearly of the view that the present petition is yet another example of the grossest abuse of the process of law, particularly by invoking the PIL jurisdiction of this Court wholly unnecessarily and in a rather questionable manner. On the core of the issues sought to be raised by the petitioner, suffice it to say as to whether any particular person is to be permitted to appear as an authorized representative or not, is essentially a matter for the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned to examine; and we find no reason to accede the petitioner this liberty to rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re raised in Writ Petition Nos.42223 and 43744 of 2017. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad has passed a detailed judgment dated 14.02.2018 on these Writ Petitions. (Copy of Judgment dated 14.02.2018 enclosed). Petitioners of these Writs have appealed against the dismissal of these Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and the same is pending adjudication. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we on behalf of our client call upon you to withdraw your legal notice dated 25.03.2018 on receipt of present reply. A copy of the present reply has been retained in our office for the purpose of records. Enclosure: Judgment dated 14.02.2018 passed in Writ Petition Nos.42223 and 43744 of 2017 by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad." The petitioner's submission that he has filed the documents as received does not inspire confidence because there is nothing stated in the petition that the said enclosure with the reply was not received by the petitioner. The decision in N.K. Bajpai's case (supra) was rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the questions as regards the validity of Section 129(6) of the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly for genuine public causes; and while issuing several directions to curb the unnecessary approach to the Constitutional Courts in the name of PIL so as to maintain the purity and sanctity of PIL jurisdiction, has observed, inter alia, as under: "143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts. 144. In BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of India this Court recognized that there have been, in recent times, increasing instances of abuse of public interest litigation. Accordingly, the Court has devised a number of strategies to ensure that the attra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling a frivolous and vexatious PIL petition. The Court found that the petition was devoid of public interest, and instead labelled it as "publicity interest litigation". Thus, the Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 10,000. 151. Similarly, in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's monetary penalty against a member of the Bar for filing a frivolous and vexatious PIL petition. This Court found that the petition was nothing but a camouflage to foster personal dispute. Observing that no one should be permitted to bring disgrace to the noble profession, the Court concluded that the imposition of the penalty of Rs. 25,000 by the High Court was appropriate. Evidently, the Supreme Court has set clear precedent validating the imposition of monetary penalties against frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions, especially when filed by advocates. 152. This Court, in the second category of cases, even passed harsher orders. In Charan Lal Sahu v. Zail Singh the Supreme Court observed that (SCC p. 400, para 17), "we would have been justified in passing a heavy order of costs against the two petitioners" for filing a "light-hearted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s found guilty of filing frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions." Several of the features which are indicative of the questionable character of a petition, which is filed ostensibly as a PIL, but is not espousing any public cause are, obviously, available in the present petition. This petition could only be said to be an unwarranted and meddlesome interloping attempt and that too, while withholding certain relevant facts; while not even impleading the relevant persons as parties; and on a cause that is required to be taken up in different forum. Therefore, we are constrained to observe that this petition is required to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Accordingly, and in view of the above, this petition is dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh), to be deposited by the petitioner within 30 days from today with the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru. If this amount of costs is not deposited by the petitioner within 30 days from today, the Deputy Commissioner concerned shall ensure its recovery from the petitioner in accordance with law. On being deposited/recovered, the Deputy Commissioner concerned shall remit the amount aforesaid to the Karnataka State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
