RAVI S. DHAVAN, CJ.:- By this petition the applicant Haridwar Pendey desires that the persons who have been named in his relief clause be punished and sent to jail for contempt. The persons named in his relief clause are; Sri B.P. Pandey, Sr. Advocate, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Garg, and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N.P. Singh the Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.N. Singh retired in April this year.

2. In this petition seeking criminal contempt action against judges of the Superior Judiciary, the applicant has not spared even others, named in the text with derogatory language. Then on the record from Supreme Court, New Delhi, to Patna district courts he has not even had regard for Hon'ble Supreme Court Judges. The disparaging remarks have been on them also. Any Judge, subordinate judiciary Judge, High Court Judge, Supreme Court Judge who has decided cases against him, has one under his tongue lashing.

3. The petitioner submitted, that the court is obliged to issue notice on his petition mechanically otherwise limitation will bar his petition and complicate issue for not being considered on a technicality. The petition has been filed under Section 16 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

4. The court intimated him that his address, that the court is obliged to issue notice would amount to delivering a notice to a Hon'ble judge on the Bench without examining the cause of the petition. A judge of a superior court of record, judges of the Supreme Court and judges of the High Courts, only because they are judges of superior courts of record, cannot be in contempt of their own court. The petition reads of many things said and done by the Hon'ble judges in discharge of their judicial functions. If a case is decided not adverse to the petitioner, he is not aggrieved but if the case is decided against the petitioner, according to him, the Judge is in contempt because the applicant says so. The notice cannot be issued so easily as the applicant wants it.

5. The applicant appears to be in litigation as a habit as if there is an obsessional neurosis to file cases and abuse judges. What would be the reason? The Court will examine this subsequently.

6. First, a bird's eye view is needed to the number of the cases in which the applicant is involved and the nature of the case. The number of cases in which the applicant Haridwar Pandey is involved and the applicant has filed in the District courts. Patna High Court and the Supreme Court, in as much information as could be gathered are noted below:

(A) District court 1 (Special Case No. 158/83 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 37 of 1978.)

(B) Patna High Court: 75 cases, out of which 15 cases are pending.

(C) Supreme Court: 22 SLPs (all disposed of)

7. About 99 cases were filed Why so many cases? Have the cases bee) filed or the applicant has generated litigation. The nature of the litigation has a genesis. The applicant had been charged to face trial after the charges were brought under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is alleged that the applicant Haridwar Pandey is answerable to a charge of having properties and assets which are disproportionate to his known means of income. He has engineered a defence that the proceedings must never close. A closure of the proceedings would mean a result. The applicant does not want a final result. Thus, he baits the Judge abuses the Judge, claims him name and in this exercise he has left no one neither the Subordinate Judiciary, nor Judges of the High Court or the Judge of the Supreme Court. The applicant Haridwar Pandey says he has been an engineer. Now, past retirement age, he says he has taken to law which he understands well, more than lawyers who do not know it. He has and is in process of writing books on law. The Bar Council of India should check his credentials in law, his degree his enrolment. He preaches morals and advertises, his honesty and integrity But, that is pending trial in Special Case