Back
V.V.S.RAO, RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Madupu Harinarayana @ Haribabu – Appellant
Versus
The Learned 1st Additional District Judge – Respondent
What is the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a civil court judgment affirmed on appeal and by the Supreme Court? What are the rights of a General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder regarding court audience and argument? How can courts respond to vexatious and frivolous litigation?
Key Points: - The writ appeal challenging dismissal of a writ petition seeking certiorari against a civil court decree affirmed by High Court and Supreme Court is not maintainable, as writs cannot quash inter-parties orders of superior courts after due trial (!) [2000370340008][2000370340010]. - A GPA holder can file affidavits and cases but has no right of audience to plead or argue like an enrolled advocate, as per Advocates Act ss.29,30,33,45 and CPC Order III; unauthorized practice is punishable [2000370340014][2000370340015] (!) (!) . - GPA holder T.D. Dayal is a habitual filer of frivolous cases, previously convicted for contempt, barred from arguing, and directed not to enter court premises or file cases without advocate (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Courts cannot issue writs of certiorari against judgments of coordinate or superior courts, relying on Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Roopa Ashok Hurra [2000370340008][2000370340010]. - Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949 applies to Andhra area but not Telangana; High Court under Advocates Act s.34 can prevent frivolous filings (!) (!) (!) . - Directions issued: Registry to reject T.D. Dayal's filings, Bar Council to prosecute for illegal practice, costs of Rs.25,000 imposed, contempt case to be registered against him (!) (!) (!) . - Attributing bias or prejudice to judges via letters or affidavits constitutes contempt of court (!) (!) (!) .
(V.V.S. Rao)
1. Madupu Harinarayana (appellant herein), represented by his General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder Sri T.D.Dayal (hereafter referred to as the GPA), has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the order and judgment dated 13.7.2010 of the learned single Judge in W.P. (SR) No.81961 of 2010. The appellant filed the said writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records in, and connected with, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.44 of 2002 dated 29.4.2006 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, and quash the same. The Registry raised an objection regarding maintainability of such a petition. The GPA represented the case referring to Syed Yakoob v K.S.Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477. The Registry listed the matter before the learned single Judge. By the impugned order the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
2. After giving a very patient hearing to Mr.T.D.Dayal, and perusing various provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court in which he himself figured either as a social activist or
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
