Harendra Jha Vs.
Ministry of Law Th:Secretary  INSC 1434 (26 August 2008)
JURISDICTION Criminal Misc. Petition No. 10058 of 2008 In Writ Petition (Crl.)
D. No. 33998 of 2007 Harendra Jha .. Petitioner Versus Ministry of Law through
Secretary to Government of India .. Respondent
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
petitioner in person has filed this petition.
have carefully perused the petition and heard the petitioner-in-person at
length, but we found it difficult to comprehend the real grievance of the
petitioner against which he has approached this court.
appears from the cause title of the petition that the petitioner perhaps is
aggrieved by the Order dated 8.3.08 passed in Writ Petition No.......... Diary
No. 33998 of 2007 by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The order dated
8.3.2008 reads as follows:
Jha, petitioner-in-person, has on 22.11.07 filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No.
bearing D. No. 33998/07 seeking the following reliefs:
i) That the case may
be put up before the nine Judges Bench for final hearing.
ii) That Curative
petition may be sustained with a certificate from petitioner.
iii) That the Judges
who decided & delivered the earlier Judgment ought not be associated with
again in the proceeding to reconsider the same judgment/decision.
iv) That the Curative
Petition ought not to be circulated to the Bench & may admitted after
hearing in open court.
v) That in the event
of petition found vexatious or without merit an exemplary cost may be imposed
on petitioner, however on the contrary if the earlier order found otherwise,
i.e. proved vexatious /harassing /biased or in contravention to the doctrine of
natural justice & equity after deliberation & reconsideration, the
petitioner may be compensated by the Court (?) 3 vi) That if the allegation of
business brought before your Lordship is proved/found justified, and may passed
order as prior to 1858 in British regime in favour of public importance.
vii) That stay the
further proceeding in Curative Petition diary No. 11467 of 2007 pending
disposal of this writ petition and thereafter direct to respondents to take
application on the certificate of the petitioner.
viii) That petitioner
is a senior citizen & retired primary school teacher with elementary
knowledge of English language having no command over it & as such there is
possibility of hurting the feelings of your Lordship for which the petitioner
begs to be pardoned/excused.
ix) That your
Lordship pass such an order or orders as deemed just & proper."
It is seen from the
averments made in the petition that he has filed the Writ Petition challenging
the letter dated 18.04.07 issued by the Registry intimating him the defects
noticed in the Curative Petition filed by him as Diary No. 11467/07 in Review
Petition (Crl.) No. 909/05 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 266/05. It is also seen
from the records that since the petitioner-in-person did not cure the mandatory
defects noticed in the Curative Petition, the same was lodged vide order dated
04.12.07 passed by the Registrar.
In the instant Writ
Petition, the petitioner has challenged the requirements to be complied with by
him for moving a Curative Petition as provided in paragraphs 51 and 52 of the
decision reported in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr. (2002 (4) 4
SCC 388). He has alleged that the decision rendered in Rupa Ashok Hurra's case
violates his fundamental rights. He has also questioned the necessity to obtain
and produce a certificate from a Senior Advocate with regard to the fulfillment
of the requirements specified in the said decision.
In this connection,
it is relevant to mention that Writ Petition 334/05 filed by Shiva Kant Jha
under Article 32 of the Constitution requesting this Hon'ble Court to have a
re-look and reconsideration of the decision rendered by this Hon'ble Court in
Rupa Ashok Hurra's case, was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated
28.11.07. In the said order, this Hon'ble Court held as follows:
petitioner-in-person at length and learned Additional Solicitor General for
India. Petitioner argued that all final decisions of this Court are subject to
the remedy available under Article 32 of the Constitution. Petitioner contended
that there may be occasions where the decisions of this Court may violate the
fundamental rights of citizens and under those circumstances, the aggrieved
should have remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution against such decisions.
In support of his contentions, he referred to the views of several learned
authors and the decisions of English Courts. It is not necessary to refer to
them, as the question has been exhaustively considered by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra (supra).
5 Of course, the
decision of this Court could be reviewed and if necessary varied in appropriate
cases, as pointed out in Rupa Ashok Hurra. The decision of an earlier Bench
could also be overruled by a larger Bench. But we do not accept the submission
of the petitioner, that the decision of this Court which has attained finality
could be subjected to judicial review under Article 33 of the Constitution, at
the instance of one of the parties to the decision. We find no merit in the
writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
This Hon'ble Court
having held that the decision of this Hon'ble Court which has attained finality
could not be subjected to judicial review under Article 32 of the Constitution,
the petitioner cannot be permitted to move a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution, seeking a review of the decision rendered by this Hon'ble Court
in Rupa Ashok Hurra's case. In paragraph 59 of the judgment in Rupa Ashok
Hurra's case, reference was made to the decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar
and others v. State of Maharashtra and another ((1966) 3 SCR 744), wherein it
was held that the remedy of writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Constitution is not available for the purpose of issue of writ of certiorari to
correct judicial orders passed by or in relation to proceedings pending before
the Hon'ble High Courts. In the decision reported in A. R. Antulay v. R. S.
Nayak and another ((1988) 2 SCC 602), relying upon the nine Judges Bench
Judgment of this Hon'ble Court, it was held by this Hon'ble Court that it must
be taken as concluded that the judicial proceedings in this Court are not
subjected to the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.
6 Since the
petitioner-in-person failed to cure the mandatory defects communicated to him,
the Curative Petition filed by the petitioner-in-person was already lodged
under Rules 6(3) and 6(4) of Order X of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, vide
order dated 04.12.07 passed by the Registrar and that was communicated to the
petitioner vide Registry's letter dated 04.12.07. Therefore, he is not
justified in challenging the letter dated 18.04.07 sent by the Registry
intimating him the defects in the Curative Petition. The petitioner has thus
not made out any reasonable cause justifying registration of the present
petition purported to be one filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, in the
light of the decision of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 334/05.
For the reasons
stated above, the Petition filed by the petitioner-in-person bearing D. No.
33998/07, is hereby
lodged under Rule 5 of Order XVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
petitioner-in-person may be informed accordingly.
Sd/- (T. Sivadasan)
Registrar (Judicial) 08.03.08"
this petition, the petitioner has also annexed order dated 4.12.07 passed by
the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
The same reads as
Jha, who was the petitioner in W.P. (Cr) 266/2005 (D.No. 10507/05) has filed
the 7 instant Curative Petition. On scrutiny, the curative petition was found
defective and the defects noted were communicated to him vide this Registry's
letters dated 18.4.07 and 18.9.07. Since the defects were not cured, he was
given further four weeks time at last chance to cure the defects. The same was
intimated to him vide this Registry's letter dated 22.10.07, wherein the
defects noticed, were once again mentioned. He was informed that if he fails to
cure the defects within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the letter,
action as contemplated under Rules 6(3) and 6(4) of Order X of the Supreme
Court Rules, 1966 will be taken. It is seen that instead of curing the defects
pointed out to him, the petitioner in person has stated in his letter dated
23.11.07 that he has moved a Writ Petition D. No. 33998/07 on 22.11.07 challenging
the validity of the order passed in Rupa Ashok Hurrah case and that proceedings
may be stayed till the disposal of the said writ petition.
On perusal of the
records, it is seen that W.P. (Cr) D. 10507/05 filed by the petitioner in
person was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on 22.8.05 and the Review Petition
No. 909/05 filed by him was also dismissed by this Hon'ble Court vide order
dated 31.8.095. Since the petitioner in person has failed to cure the defects
communicated to him in spite of the several opportunities given to him, and
since some of the defects noticed are mandatory in nature, action as
contemplated under Rules 6(3) and 6(4) of Order X of the Supreme Court Rules,
1966 is taken and I decline to register the instant curative petition.
The petitioner in
person may be informed accordingly.
Sd/- (T. Sivadasan)
8 Registrar (Judicial) 4.12.07"
the matter came up for hearing before this court, we gave a patient hearing to
the petitioner-in-person and permitted him to argue at length in order to
ascertain his grievance. Unfortunately, neither in the petition nor in his oral
submissions, he could articulate what directions he wants from the court.
petitioner-in-person has placed reliance on a Constitution Bench judgment of
this Court in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao AIR 1953 SC 210
and brought to our notice that the makers of the Constitution, having decided
to provide for certain basic safeguards for the people in the new set up, which
they called fundamental rights, evidently thought it necessary to provide also
a quick and inexpensive remedy for the enforcement of such rights.
There is no quarrel
with this legal preposition but we fail to comprehend how this case can in any
manner help the petitioner.
this petition, we cannot give any direction. The Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition and the Writ Petition being devoid of any merit are accordingly
(Harjit Singh Bedi)
Pages: 1 2 3