1. Service termination — Repeated challenges through writ petitions, tribunal, and special leave petition — Filing of a subsequent writ petition on the same cause. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 939
1997(6) Supreme 505
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand & K.T. Thomas, JJ.
Ajit Prasad Gupta -Petitioner
versus
State of U.P. & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. (D. 21228/96)
Decided on 10-7-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Debasis Misra, Advocate (NP).
Important Points
The court emphasized that judicial proceedings must reach finality and condemned the abuse of the legal process through repeated filings of petitions on the same cause of action, asserting that litigants do not have an unlimited right to court time and public money.
Subject
Civil Law - Abuse of Process
Act Referred
Headnote
Judicial Process-Writ challenging termination of services terminated on 5-1-1972-Similar writ filed in High Court in 1974 was dismissed and order acquired finality-Another petition before U.P. Public Service Tribunal was filed which was dismissed in 1979-Another writ for same cause was dismissed by High Court in 1979-Present writ was abuse of process of Court-Writ dismissed with Rs. 5000 as costs. (Para 2)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Repeatedly filing petitions on the same cause constitutes an abuse of the process of the court and an undue drain on public resources. (Para 2 )
3. Finality of judicial proceedings must be accepted at some stage to prevent the abuse of the court's process. (Para 2 )
4. Writ petition dismissed with costs to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority. (Para 2 )
5. When does the repeated filing of petitions on the same cause constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
Filing multiple petitions, including writs and appeals, after the matter has already been decided and attained finality is considered a total abuse of the court's process. (Para 2 )
6. Is a litigant entitled to unlimited access to court time to resolve a dispute?
No, a litigant does not have a right to an unlimited draw on court time and public money; finality of judicial proceedings must be accepted at some stage. (Para 2 )
ORDER
This case has been called even after the list is revised, but nobody appears.
2. 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. He allowed that order to acquire finality and lateron 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 petition No.4536/79, for the same cause which was dismissed by the High Court on 16.8.1979. A review petition against that order was dismissed on 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 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 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.
Petition dismissed.
********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Ajit Prasad Gupta v. State of U.P., 1997(6) Supreme 505 : JT 1997(6) SC 593 : 1997(6) SCC 50
00019
