A litigant cannot dictate judicial proceedings or request recusal of a judge based on prior costs imposed; each case must be decided on its own merits.

JUDGMENT :

P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

1. The rule of law demands obedience to court orders.

Disregard for court orders undermines the integrity of the justice system. The petitioner herein will appear only as a party in person; of course, there is no bar to the same. However, a litigant appearing as a party in person should be familiar with the basics of courtroom decorum, and he should know the consequences for making unnecessary submissions even after a warning. These two writ petitions are filed by Mr. Asif Azad, who appeared ‘party in person’ through online mode. The prayers in W.P.(Crl.) No.1150 of 2024 are extracted hereunder:-

“1. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing any of the respondent No.9 to 12 or 13 to immediately lodge the FIR against respondent No.1 to 5 on Exhibit P1 (Exhibit P9 in WP(C) 36119/2024) under Sections 1(4), 1(5), 308(6), 311, 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS.

2. To allow this petition with cost.” [SIC]

2. The prayers in W.P.(C) No.36119 of 2024 are as follows :-

“1. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing Respondent No.12 to immediately locate and collect the petitioner’s old passport, currently unlawfully retained by Respondents No.1 to 5, and hand it over to Respondent No.14 and additionally this honourable high court may direct Respondent No.14 to issue a new passport to the petitioner within 72 hours and forward it to Respondent No.15 and additionally, Respondent No.15 may direct to hand over both the newly issued passport and the old passport to the petitioner within 96 hours.

2. To allow this petition with cost.” [SIC]

3. When these writ petitions came up for consideration, the petitioner who appeared ‘party in person’ through online submitted that this Court should avoid these writ petitions, because this Court had earlier imposed cost on the petitioner in another proceeding. The petitioner also submitted that he has filed a complaint against me before the Hon’ble President of India and also before the Registrar General of this Court. According to the petitioner, he will not get justice from this Bench. Hence, he submitted that these cases are to be avoided by this Court.

4. The same petitioner appeared before this Court in W.P. (C) (Filing) No. 33689 of 2024 [Asif Azad v. Jaimon Baby, 2025 KHC Online 757] and made the same submission before this Court. This Court, after considering the above submission, observed like this in the above case:-

“Mr. Asif Asad filed the above case, and he appeared in the case as ‘party in person’. The prayers in the writ petition are extracted hereunder:

i. To issue a writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying petitions which is duly supported by an affidavit, It is most humbly prayed that in the interest of Natural Justice by restoring the violated constitutional and fundamental rights of Article 14, 20, 21 and 141 of Constitution of India by set-aside Exhibit P 8 and quash Exhibit P 5 of the Complaint Case dated 30.06.2018 lodged by respondent no. 1 registered as ST 2600/2018 under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act filed before Hon’ble First-Class Magistrate Court I Kottarakkara, Kollam.

ii. To issue any other suitable order or direction in the nature to which this Hon’ble Court deems just proper in favour of the petitioner.

iii. To allow this petition with cost. (SIC)

2. The writ petition was represented after curing the defects with a petition to condone the delay of 40 days in representation. This court issued notice to the 1st respondent on 04.11.2024 in the above delay condonation petition. Notice was returned with an endorsement ‘Adressee left’. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 13.06.2025, this Court passed the following order :

“Petitioner will take steps to cure the defect within two weeks. If no steps are taken, Registry will post the matter in the defect list, after two weeks.”

3. Today, the petitioner appeared in person online and submitted that, this Cou