ORDER

1. WE HAVE HEARD THE PETITIONER FOR ABOUT 15 MINUTES.

2. THE PETITIONER IS AN ADVOCATE WHO CLAIMS TO BE PRACTISING IN THE SUPREME COURT AND HAVING HIS PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN SONEPAT, HARYANA. HE HAS FILED THIS PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS:

"(A) DECLARE THAT AN ACT OF OMISSION AND COMMISSION ON THE PART OF JUDGES TO GO ON EN MASSE LEAVE EVEN FOR AN HOUR IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND MISCONDUCT AND WOULD AMOUNT TO STRIKE;

(B) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FRAME ADEQUATE RULES AND REGULATIONS RESTRAINING THE JUDGES OF HIGH COURTS AND JUDGES OF SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY TO GO ON STRIKE OR TO MAKE A CALL OF STRIKE IN THE GUISE OF EN MASSE LEAVE;

(C) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO MAKE ADEQUATE RULES WHICH PROVIDE MECHANISM FOR TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST THE JUDGES AT EVERY LEVEL WHO VIOLATE THE LAW;

(D) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO MAKE IT MANDATORY FOR EVERY HIGH COURT AND THEIR SUBORDINATE COURTS THAT AT LEAST 95 PER CENT JUDGES OF THE TOTAL STRENGTH OF THE COURT WOULD REMAIN PRESENT IN COURT ON EVERY WORKING DAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ROSTER;

(E) TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ADOPT AND ENACT A 16 POINT MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT AS LAW WHICH WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THE HIGH COURTS AND THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO;

(F) TO TRANSFER ALL THE 25 PUISNE JUDGES OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH TO ANY OTHER HIGH COURT AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW;

(G) ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT(S), ORDER(S) OR DIRECTION(S) AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE."

3. THE CAUSE OF ACTION GIVING RISE TO THE OCCASION FOR THE PETITIONER FILING THIS PETITION IS THAT ON 19-4-2004, 25 JUDGES OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAD PROCEEDED ON CASUAL LEAVE WHICH LEAVE, ACCORDING TO THE PETITIONER, HAVING BEEN SOUGHT EN MASSE AMOUNTS TO "STRIKE" BY THE JUDGES. THE PETITIONER RELIES ON CERTAIN PASSAGES FROM THE CONSTITUTION BENCH DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF EX CAPT. HARISH UPPAL V. UNION OF INDIA1. IN ADDITION, HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DEFINITION OF "STRIKE" AS GIVEN IN STROUDS JUDICIAL DICTIONARY, 5TH EDN. AT P. 2511 AND BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY AT P. 1591. WE ARE LITTLE SURPRISED TO NOTICE THE PETITIONERS RELIANCE ON THE DEFINITION FROM BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:

"STRIKE.-THE ACT OF QUITTING WORK BY A BODY OF WORKERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COERCING THEIR EMPLOYER TO ACCEDE TO SOME DEMAND THEY HAVE MADE UPON HIM, AND WHICH HE HAS REFUSED."

4. AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE PUT IT TO THE PETITIONER THAT A BARE PERUSAL OF THE D PETITION SHOWS THAT IT IS BASED ENTIRELY ON NEWSPAPER REPORTS AND ASKED HIM WHETHER BEFORE FILING THE PETITION HE HAS TAKEN CARE TO VERIFY THE FACTS PERSONALLY. HIS ANSWER IS IN THE NEGATIVE. IN THE WRIT PETITION ALL THE 21 HIGH COURTS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AS THE RESPONDENTS AND THE UNION OF INDIA HAS ALSO BEEN IMPLEADED AS THE 22ND RESPONDENT. WE ASKED THE PETITIONER WHAT HAS PROVOKED HIM TO IMPLEAD ALL THE HIGH COURTS AS RESPONDENTS AND HE STATES E THAT IT IS HIS APPREHENSION THAT SIMILAR INCIDENTS MAY OCCUR IN OTHER HIGH COURTS THOUGH THERE IS NO FACTUAL FOUNDATION FOR SUCH APPREHENSION.

5. AFTER AFFORDING THE PETITIONER FULL OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT WHAT PURPORTS TO HAVE BEEN FILED AS A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS NOTHING MORE THAN A "PUBLICITY INTEREST LITIGATION". IT IS WRIT LARGE THAT IT HAS BEEN FILED WITHOUT ANY EFFORT AT VERIFYING THE FACTS BY THE PETITIONER F PERSONALLY.

6. THE WRIT PETITION IS ENTIRELY MISCONCEIVED AND IS DISMISSED.

CP (CRL.) ... CRL. MP NO. 5541 OF 2004.

7. DISMISSED.

COURT MASTERS