1. This petition is one filed by the learned Advocate General, under a rarely invoked statute, the Madias Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The prayer is to pass an order tinder S.2 of the Act against the respondent Sri. T.A. Rajendran.

2. The essence of the averments in the petition is that the respondent is indulging in vexatious litigation. It is alleged that the respondent has no ostensible means of livelihood or a fixed place of abode, and earns his livelihood by blackmailing; though the respondent styles himself as an Editor, no publication of any paper is really made by him. Reference has been made to the litigations unsuccessfully initiated by him, H writ petitions in 1984, 5 in 1985 and 1 in 1986 all in the High Court; two criminal cases in the Magistrate Court, one of which was carried to the High Court. It is asserted that the respondent has become a menace to the society and the public.

3. The petition states:

"If the respondent is allowed to indulge in launching prosecutions and other legal proceedings against innocent and respectable people, nobody could pursue his life peacefully"

(Buckley L. J. said:

"The expression "to institute a prosecution" is, I think, an accurate one. Colloquially "to start or to launch a prosecution" might be used, but I should not expect to find those expressions in an Act of Parliament."

The idea sought to be conveyed by the Advocate-General is, however, fairly clear).

4. Some of the allegations, particularly in relation to the character and conduct of the respondent, have not been established by any evidence or material, even on a prima facie basis. It is, therefore, difficult to enter a specific finding in relation to those allegations. In as much as many of the allegations made by the Advocate-General in his petition are based on the judgments of, and proceedings in, this Court, they could be obtained from the records of this Court and scrutinised.

5. Before entering into the assessment of the assertion made by the Advocate-General in relation to the respondent, it is desirable that the section which has been invoked is read in full:

"2. Leave of court necessary for vexatious litigant to institute proceedings: (1) If, on an application made by the Advocate-General, the High Court is satisfied that any person has habitually and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings, civil or criminal, in any Court or Courts, the High Court may, after giving that person an opportunity of being heard, order that no proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be instituted by him in any Court

(i) in the Presidency-town, without the leave of the High Court; and

(ii) elsewhere, without the leave of the District and Sessions Judge.

(2) If it appears to the High Court that the person against whom an application is made under sub-section (1), is unable, on account of poverty, to engage a pleader, the High Court may engage a pleader to appear for him.

Explanation: For the purpose of this section 'pleader' has the same meaning as in S.2, clause (15) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."

6. The objects and reasons as set out in the Bill leading to the Act states:

"There is no statutory provision at present to prevent the institution in Courts of frivolous and vexatious proceedings by habitual litigants. The Bill is intended to prevent the institution of such proceedings and thereby relieve the Courts and judicial officers of the annoyance caused by such proceedings and the waste of time involved in dealing with them.

It is provided in the Bill that if the High Court is satisfied on the application of the Advocate-General that any person has habitually instituted vexatious proceedings, civil or criminal, in any court or courts, the High Court may order that no proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be instituted by such person in any Court within the presidency-town without the leave of the High Court and elsewhere without the leave of the District