PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.

1. This public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner in person seeking relief(s) that there are several discrepancies and demerits in the provisions of the Indian Penal Code in which punishment prescribed is more than three years, as such, an appropriate direction be issued for removing those discrepancies. The above-stated petition came-up before the Division Bench consisting of one of us (Justice Pritinker Diwaker) and Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma on 10-8-2017, but on the request of the petitioner (in person), it was adjourned for two weeks. Thereafter, on 29.8.2017 it was listed before the Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice and Sharad Kumar Gupta, J and an order was passed to list the case on 31.8.2017. Thereafter, on 5.9.2017 it was directed to be listed before a Bench in which the Chief Justice is not a member, and the date was given as 22-9-2017.

2. Thereafter, on 22-9-2017, the matter on allotment came before the Bench consisting of one of us (Justice Pritinker Diwaker) and Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma, and following order was passed:

“22-9-2017

Mr. Raj Kumar Mishra, Petitioner in person.

Mr. Vivek Sharma, Govt. Advocate for the State.

Mr. Vivek Sharma prays for and is granted five weeks’ time to file reply of I.A. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 2017.

List this case after five weeks.”

3. Thereafter, this I.A.No.4/2017 has been filed on 30-10-2017 for recusal of the matter from the Bench in which one of us (Pritinker Diwaker, J) is a member. 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 It is further stated that the PILs have been dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner(s) concerned fearing imposition of cost.

4. It has also been pleaded by the 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 application that in two writ appeals filed by the petitioner, 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 petitioner had filed this application before this Court on 30-10-2017 and has not appeared even to support that application. In paragraph 5 of the said application, reference of certain orders have been given, which has been passed by the Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Justice 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 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 have also been closed by the Division Bench in which one of us (Justice Diwaker) was one of the members and in most of the cases the petitioner was not a party, therefore, the petitioner 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 petitioner was not a party. Likewise, non-imposition of cost in PIL Nos.17/2015 and 39/2015 cannot be questioned by the petitioner and the litigant/applicant cannot be allowed to make comparison of two orders in which he was not a party and make a ground for recusal