(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 a GPA for parties to the proceedings in the writ petitions, we are convinced that this is vexatious litigation. This is yet another instance of busybodies and meddlesome interlopers resorting to filing frivolous cases before the highest Court of the State due to perceived injustice to the community, or to the cause of a few gullible individuals whom they represent.

3. With these remarks we will consider the case. For the sake of convenience and clarity, we divide this order into three parts: (1) Maintainability of the writ petition; (2) GPA’s right of Court audience; and (3) Court’s response to vexatious and frivolous litigation. Maintainability of Writ Petition

4. The fourth respondent herein, namely, Smt.P.Swaroopa Rani is the proprietrix of M/s.Venkateswara Theatre AIR 1963 SC 114, Kadapa. She allegedly entered into an agreement dated 28.3.2001 for sale of the theatre, with the appellant herein, for a consideration of Rs.64,00,000/-. The appellant allegedly paid Rs.17,12,000/- as advance. Subsequent to the agreement, the appellant also allegedly paid another sum of Rs.15,50,000/-. When the sale deed was not registered, he instituted O.S.No.44 of 2002 for specific performance on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa – first respondent herein. The vendor opposed the suit, which went into trial. As many as six witnesses – two for the appellant and four for the fourth respondent – were examined, and as many as 56 documents were marked. By an elaborate judgment, the District Judge dismissed the suit on 29.6.2006. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant approached this Court by filing A.S.No.271 of 2006. The same was elaborately heard, along with the cross-objections of the fourth respondent, by the Division Bench. By judgment dated 23.9.2008, the judgment of the District Judge was confirmed.

5. The appellant then filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court. The same being SLP (Civil) Nos.26051 – 26052 of 2008 were dismissed on 10.11.2008. Thereafter the appellant filed Review Petition (C) Nos.352 – 353 of 2009 which were dismissed on 08.4.2009. Till this stage, it appears, the appellant was represented by a duly instructed counsel – an Advocate enrolled on the rolls of the respective State Bar Councils.

6. The appellant still harboured views that justice evaded him. Although his appeal to this Court, and the appeal to the Supreme Court, were dismissed he again filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court. The Registrar (Judicial) recorded proceedings on 09.7.2009 in the said unregistered writ petition being W.P.(Civil) Diary No.15246 of 2009 filed by the appellant on 15.5.2009. The appellant was informed that he had not made out