Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, PARTHA SARTHY, JJ.
Arun Kumar Tiwari, Son of Late Keshaw Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
The High Court of Judicature at Patna – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16765 of 2022
Decided on : 22-06-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, In Person
For the Respondent:Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the provision did not infringe fundamental rights and that the application lacked merit, being filed more out of frustration with delays in the legal process.
Headnote:
Rule 1-B - Patna High Court Rules - The court dismissed the application challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 1-B of Chapter XXI-C of the Patna High Court Rules, stating that the provision did not infringe fundamental rights and the application lacked merit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application to challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 1-B of Chapter XXI-C of the Patna High Court Rules, alleging that despite the provision for urgent writ applications to be listed expeditiously, cases were not being listed promptly.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application lacked merit and was filed more out of frustration with delays in the legal process, rather than on valid legal grounds. The court also noted that the petitioner's own case was not listed for admission despite being posted for the same.
Issues: The issues revolved around the constitutional validity of Rule 1-B of Chapter XXI-C of the Patna High Court Rules and the petitioner's frustration with delays in the legal process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provision did not infringe fundamental rights and that the application was ill-conceived, misconceived, and an abuse of the court process.
Final Decision: The application challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 1-B of Chapter XXI-C of the Patna High Court Rules was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
PARTHA SARTHY, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant application has been filed for the following relief(s):-
“That this is an application for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ to declare Rule 1(B) of the Chapter XXI C of the Patna High Court Rules 1916 ultra vires the Constitution of India.”
3. For ready reference Rule 1-B of Chapter XXI-C of the Patna High Court Rules is being quoted herein below:-
“1-B (i) All Civil Writ applications, which are ipso facto treated as urgent may ordinarily be presented 2[at centralised filing counter] on any working day, which is not a court holiday:
[Proviso Deleted by C.S. No. 111 dated 30.9.1996.]
(ii) These applications will be laid before the Registrar who shall ordinarily post them for hearing on the next day or the second following day. If, however, the Registrar is satisfied that there is sufficient urgency, he shall mark the petition for hearing on the same day.”
4. Although, the prayer in the instant application is for declaring Rule 1-B of Chapter XXI-C of the Patna High Court Rules as ultra vires the Constitution, however, the material that one gathers from the averment made in the writ application is to the effect that inspite of a provision providing that the urgent writ applications may be presented for filing on any working day and shall be ordinarily posted for hearing on the next day or the second following day, the said provision raises hopes in the minds of the citizens but the cases are not being listed.
5. It may be mentioned here that the grounds for challenging constitutional validity of a legislative enactment or rule framed are that it infringes the fundamental rights, it is outside the competence of the authority which has framed it and is repugnant to the constitutional provisions.
6. Neither any submissions have been made to the above effect nor is there any averment/recital with respect to the same in the writ application. There is absolutely no merit in the writ application.
7. The petitioner has filed the writ petition more by reason of righteous indignation against ‘laws delays’. But every case filed though posted expeditiously before Court cannot be disposed off on the very next day or the second following day and that is not the intention of the Rule.
8. It is also pertinent that the petitioner has listed out a few cases filed by him which are pending for long. But that is no reason for him to challenge the rule as ultra vires. In this context, we cannot but notice that this very P.I.L. of 2022, when posted for admission on 10.01.2023, none appeared, despite repeated calls; as recorded in the order of that date. The writ petition is ill conceived, misconceived and a clear abuse of process of Court.
9. The application is dismissed.
