1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.7.2017 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in WP (C) No. 1857/2017 dismissing the writ petition as being not maintainable.

2. The above-stated petition came-up before the Division Bench consisting of one of us (Justice Pritinker Diwaker) and Justice Arvind Singh Chandel on 24.10.2017 when on the request of the appellant/petitioner it was directed to be listed after a week making it clear that no further adjournment shall be granted. On 7.11.2017 when the matter came to be listed before the Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta, it was posted for 6.12.2017. However, on that date, the matter was directed to be listed after winter holidays before Division Bench-II which consists of us on 17.1.2018. On 18.1.2018 when the matter was listed before Division Bench-II, none appeared for the appellant/petitioner even in the second round and hence fixed date SPC was issued to him and the matter was ordered to be listed after eight weeks.

3. In the meanwhile, on 12.12.2017 an application I.A. No. 1/2017 has been filed for recusal of the matter from the Bench in which one of us (Pritinker Diwaker, J.) is a member. In the said application, the appellant/petitioner has given reference to similar applications filed in his other petitions and has annexed copy of one such application filed in WPPIL Nos. 96/2017. The reason for recusal assigned in that application is that fifteen PILs have been dismissed contrary to law and fourteen PILs have been dismissed assigning various reasons and one PIL (W.P. (PIL) No. 25/2014) filed by advocate has been dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the ground that advocate cannot file PIL, whereas in other two PILs filed by advocates, cost was not imposed and some of the PILs have been dismissed for want of prosecution, whereas the petition once filed should be decided on merits. It is further stated that the PILs have been dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioners concerned fearing imposition of cost.

4. It has also been pleaded by the appellant/petitioner that attitude of Justice Pritinker Diwaker is not justice-oriented towards PIL and having negative attitude, therefore my petition be not listed before a Bench consisting of Justice Pritinker Diwaker. It has further been stated in paragraph 11 of the said application that in two writ appeals filed by him, attitude of Justice Diwaker is not proper and opinion has been expressed to impose heavy cost, therefore the matter be recused from the court of Justice Pritinker Diwaker.

5. The appellant/petitioner had filed this application before this Court on 12-12-2017 and has not appeared even to support that application. In paragraph 5 of the similar application annexed therewith, reference of certain orders have been given, which has been passed by the Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Justice Pritinker Diwaker) was a member. If these orders were passed contrary to law, the legal remedy is to challenge the same before the higher forum and for want of such challenge, they attain finality. Moreover, in most of the cited cases, the appellant/petitioner was not even a party and as such, has no locus to call in question those orders in the present case.

6. Likewise, the PILs mentioned in second part of paragraph 5 of the said application have also been closed by the Division Bench in which one of us (Justice Pritinker Diwaker) was one of the members and in most of the cases the appellant/petitioner was not a party, therefore, he cannot be allowed to question the orders passed in those cases.

7. The order in W.P. (PIL) No. 25/2014 has also been passed imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/- in which also the appellant/petitioner was not a party. Likewise, non-imposition of cost in PIL Nos. 17/2015 and 39/2015 cannot be questioned by the appellant/petitioner and the litigant/applicant cannot be allowed to make comparison of two orders in which he was not a part