Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (crl.) D8445 of 2004
PETITIONER:
R.N. SHARMA
RESPONDENT:
B.M GUPTA (EX. REGISTRAR J-I)AND ANR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/03/2007
BENCH:
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & P.P. NAOLEKAR
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
CRMP NO. 10565 OF 2004
IN
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) D. NO. 8445 OF 2004
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.
The petitioner-in-person was an officer in the Air Force.
He was discharged from service on 8.10.1965. He filed
a Civil Writ Petition (No. 335/1970) before the High Court of
Delhi challenging his discharge from service. The High Court
disposed of the matter on 15.5.1995. Though the discharge
was held not valid, there was no order of reinstatement or
damages or any direction to pay arrears of salary or any such
pecuniary benefits. The petitioner-in-person, it seems, filed a
Review Application before the High Court and the same was
dismissed on 14.10.1998. He challenged that order by filing
S.L.P. (C) No. 8728/1999, which was dismissed by this Court
on 9.8.1999. The petitioner-in-person moved the High Court
by filing another Application i.e. Application No. 13115 of 2000
for execution of the decree dated 15.5.975, which was also
dismissed by the High Court on 10.5.2001. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner-in-person again filed S.L.P. (C) No. 1998
of 2002 and the same was dismissed by this Court on
12.7.2002. Having been unsuccessful in all these proceedings,
the petitioner again filed an Application on 23.7.2002 under
Order XVIII Rule 5 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966. That
application was dismissed, as also the subsequent Review
Petition. Petitioner-in-person again moved Contempt Petition
D. No. 4555/2003 arraying two of the Judges of this Court as
respondents and also the then Solicitor General of India. The
Registrar declined to entertain the Contempt Application and
aggrieved by the order of the Registrar, the petitioner filed a
Criminal Writ Petition against the then Registrar (Judicial)
which was placed before the Chamber Judge. That Application
was rejected on 11.4.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a
Writ Petition (Crl.) D.No. 8445/2004 arraying one of the
Hon’ble Judges of this Court and also an Assistant Registrar of
this Court, as respondents. The Registrar rejected the said
petition under Order XVIII, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court
Rules, 1966. Petitioner challenges this order.
We heard the petitioner-in-person. The petitioner has a
grievance that though his discharge from Air Force was held to
be not valid by the High Court, it did not order his
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
reinstatement nor gave any pecuniary benefits to him. Feeling
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-in-person had all along
been unsuccessfully pursuing these remedies. However, as
the SLP filed by the petitioner-in-person against the order of
the High Court dated 15.5.1975 was dismissed, all
subsequent proceedings initiated by him were nothing but an
exercise in futility.
In our opinion, the Registrar was justified in holding that
the petitioner-in-person has no cause of action to continue
these proceedings any longer. No relief could be given to help
the petitioner-in-person in these proceedings in the absence of
any cause of action, notwithstanding the fact that he had
succeeded before the High Court. The order passed by the
Registrar is affirmed and this application is disposed of
accordingly.