The court emphasized the importance of competence in handling legal issues, the frivolous nature of petitions, and the need to comply with court directions and orders.

JUDGMENT :

D.N. Patel, J.

This writ petition has been filed by an organisation going by name of Suraz India Trust, through its chairman Rajiv Daiya, purportedly filed in public interest.

2. It prays, inter alia, that the right of the people of India, who seeks legal recourse on being injured/victimization as a result of breach of laws, the right of complainant in the case of injuries, etc., be protected and various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 be struck down.

3. The said writ petition has been filed under the liberty granted, by the Supreme Court, to do so, vide its order dated 06th December, 2010, in W.P.(C) 469/2009 (Suraz India Trust v. Union of India). The said order reads as under:

"We have seen the letter sent by the petitioner who was otherwise appearing in person.

By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of Sections 47, 128, 195, 340 and 301(1) and 302(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure contending inter alia that the said provisions are ultra vires and unconstitutional. He requests that an Amicus Curiae be appointed in this Case. In the interest of justice, Mr. R.K. Gupta, who is present in the Court today, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. He has taken us through the petition.

After going through the same, we are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid relief which the petitioner has sought for in the Writ Petition in this Court could be the subject matter of a Writ Petition before the High Court, as the petitioner has alleged that his legal rights are violated. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the Writ Petition with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court for the same relief by filing an appropriate writ petition."

(Emphasis supplied)

4. After notice was issued by this Court, on 11th April, 2019, the attention of this Court was invited to the judgment of the Supreme Court in a writ petition, preferred by the present petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, being Suraz India Trust v. Union of India, (2017) 14 SCC 416, as it was the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that, in the light of the said judgment, the present writ petition could not be entertained. This Court had, therefore, directed the petitioner to show cause as to why the present writ petition be not dismissed in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the petitioner's own case.

5. Suraz India Trust (supra) was a case in which the Supreme Court noted that the petitioner was an inveterate litigant, who had filed as many as 64 different proceedings before the Supreme Court, without being successful in any matter.

6. The Supreme Court also noted the fact that the petitioner had, earlier, cast serious aspersions against three Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Rajasthan besides its Chief Justice and had also issued notice of contempt to six Judges of the said High Courts besides its Chief Justice.

7. The following passages, from the judgement of the Supreme Court in Suraz India Trust (supra), merit reproduction, in extenso:

"7. In order to support the impropriety and wrongfulness expressed in the letter dated 27-12-2010, Suraz India Trust had appended a number of enclosures with its above letter (dated 27-12-2010). One of the letters to which our pointed attention was drawn had been addressed to Smt. Pratibha Patil - the then President of India. The subject of the aforesaid communication reveals, that the same was addressed to the President of India, besides the Prime Minister of India and the Chief Justice of India. This course of action had been adopted according to the petitioner to draw their attention against the Supreme Court of India, for having acted in contravention of the law. The opening paragraph of the instant communication dated 2-11-2009 depicts the crux of the grievance of Suraz India Trust. The same is reproduced below:

"1. That at the very outset, it is humbly submitted that when a per