Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

Review can be sought not only by those who were parties to the order but even by third parties who are affected by such an order. (P. Neelakanteswaramma v. Uppari Muthamma (1998 (3) An.W.R. 132 (D.B). Leave as sought for, to file the Review Petition, is therefore granted.

The petitioner (who appeared and presented his case before this Court in person) seeks review of the order of this Court dated 19.01.2011, dismissing W.A. No.556 of 2010 as an abuse of process of law with the following directions:

“1. the Registry should not accept any case or proceeding, application filed by Sri T.D. Dayal either as a party in person or as a holder of a GPA for third parties; all the District and Subordinate Courts in the State of Andhra Pradesh were also directed to abide by this direction;

2. the Security Officer, Incharge of the High Court Security, should not allow Sri T.D.Dayal to enter the High Court premises/precincts and to be stopped and sent away from the entry point itself unless he is specifically summoned by the Court to answer a charge or as a witness;

3. the Registry should communicate a copy of the order forthwith to the Secretary, Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, for taking necessary action as indicated in paragraph 51 of the Judgment.

4. as the appellant and the GPA had filed the case, in gross abuse of the process of Court, both of them were jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as costs within a period of two months to the Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Kadapa and, if the amount was not paid, the Member Secretary was directed to execute the order as a decree of the Court by attachment and sale of movable and/or immovable properties of the appellant and/or Sri T.D.Dayal, the GPA holder of the appellant; and

5. the Registry was directed to, suo motu, register a contempt case against Sri T.D.Dayal drawing appropriate charges for making false, unfounded and scurrilous remarks, and attributing prejudice and motives to the Hon’ble Judges of this Court and the Supreme Court.”

In W.A. No.556 of 2010, the petitioner herein contended before the Division Bench that he was the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of the appellant. In its order in W.A. No.556 of 2010 dated 19.01.2011 the Division Bench examined questions relating to the maintainability of the Writ Petition; the right of a GPA holder to address the Court; and the Court’s response to vexatious and frivolous litigations. The petitioner herein stated before us that he was not questioning the order passed, in W.A. No.556 of 2010 dated 19.01.2011, on its merits; and the said order necessitated review in all other aspects. It is, therefore, necessary for us only to examine whether the findings and the conclusions of the Division Bench, in its order in W.A. No.556 of 2010 dated 19.01.2011, on (1) right of a GPA holder to address the Court; and (2) the Court’s response to vexatious and frivolous litigations; suffer from errors apparent on the face of the record necessitating review.

I. CONCLUSIONS OF THE DIVISION BENCH ON THE RIGHT OF A GPA TO ADDRESS THE COURT:

The petitioner contends that the directions to the Registry and to other sub-ordinate Courts not to receive any petition, case or other prosecution filed by him, was undemocratic, contrary to law and in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution of India; the order, faulting him for appearing and pleading before the Court, is in violation of Order III Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India; and the Division Bench failed to note that he had filed an application to appear and plead on behalf of the appellant in the Writ Appeal. Reliance is placed by him on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hari Shankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma (AIR 1978 SC 1019: (1978) 2 SCC 165) and A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta (AIR 1990 SC 17