Sukh Deo Narain Vs. State of Rajasthan
[1984] INSC 124 (20 July 1984)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA
(J) MISRA RANGNATH
CITATION: 1984 AIR 1571 1985 SCR (1) 199 1984
SCC (4) 235 1984 SCALE (2)61
ACT:
Supreme Court Rules 1966-Order XXXVI-A-Inserted
by G.S.R. 1024 dated 19-8-1978-Application for transfer under Clause (1) of
Article 139A of the Constitution-Requirements of valid petition.
Practice-Drafting and filing petition in
casual and careless manner-Whether proper discharge of duty by advocate to
court and client.
HEADNOTE:
A petition for withdrawing a writ petition
pending in the High Court to the Supreme Court under Article 139A (1) of the
Constitution mentioned nothing else except that the writ petition pending in
the High Court raised exactly the same questions as those raised in a special
leave petition pending in the Supreme Court. What the questions were and what
the facts of the cases were was not disclosed.
Dismissing the petition,
HELD: It is most discourteous and disrespectful
to the highest court in the country to file such indifferent petitions. The
advocate; is not discharging his duty either to the court or to the client.
[200 C]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition
(Civil) No. 344 of 1983.
Under article 139A of the Constitution of
India for transfer of Writ Petition No. 475 of 1983 pending before the
Rajasthan High Court.
D. Bhandari for the Petitioner (Not Present)
B. D. Sharma for the Respondent.
The Order of the court was delivered by 200
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. This petition is totally bereft of any statement of facts.
It has been drafted and filed in a most casual and careless manner. All that is
stated in the petition is that the Writ Petition pending in the Rajasthan High
Court raises exactly the same questions as those raised in SLP (Civil) No.
7561/83 pending in this Court and the writ petition may, therefore, be
transferred to this Court.
Nothing else is mentioned. No facts relating
to either case are mentioned. Even the alleged common questions are not stated.
We can only say that it is most discourteous and disrespectful to the highest
court in the country to file such indifferent petitions. The advocate is not
discharging his duty either to the court or to the client.
Transfer petition is dismissed.
H.S.K. Petition dismissed.
Back
