Supreme Court of India

AJIT PRASAD GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 258
Decided: 10 July 1997
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: A S ANANDK T THOMAS

Holding

Repeated filing of petitions on the same matter after final adjudication is an abuse of process, warranting dismissal of the petition with costs.

Summary

Ajit Prasad Gupta, whose government service was terminated on 5 January 1972, repeatedly challenged the termination through a series of petitions before the High Court, the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, and the Supreme Court between 1974 and 1981, all of which were dismissed. After each dismissal he filed another petition on the same ground, culminating in the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court observed that such relentless filing of petitions on an already finally decided matter constitutes an abuse of the court's process and wastes public resources. The Court emphasized that litigants have no right to an unlimited opportunity to relitigate the same issue and that finality of judicial decisions must be respected. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 to the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority.

Issues considered

Whether filing successive petitions on the same termination order after final dismissal amounts to an abuse of the court's process.
Whether the Supreme Court may dismiss the petition and impose costs on the petitioner under its inherent powers.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 133, s. Article 32

Subjects

abuse of processmultiple petitionsfinality of judgmentswrit petitionArticle 32costsSupreme Courtpublic service termination

Judgment

                                                                                     (
A                             AJIT PRASAD GUPTA
                                           v.
                            STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

                                   JULY 10, 1997

B                 [DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.]

          Co11stitutio11 of India, 1950 : Article 32

          Writ petition-Abuse of process of Cowt--lmposition of costs f01~Ter-
C 111inatio11 of se1vices of petiti01w~Wlit petition challenging the orde1~Dis
  missal of writ by High Court-Thereafter petitioner filed petition after petition
  questioning the tennination orde1~Dismissal of SLP by Supreme Cowt--1-Viit
  filed thereafter-Practice of filing petition after petition co11demned-Held 110
  litigant has light to unlimited drought on Court time-Finality of judicial
  proceedings must be accepted at some state-Writ petition dismissed with
D costs.
         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No ....... (D.
    21228/96).

           Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
E
           Debasis Misra for the Petitioner. (NP)

           The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           This case has been called even after the list is revised, but nobody
F appears.
           A perusal of the writ petition shows that filing of this petition is a
    total abuse of the process of this Court. The petitioner, whose services were
    terminated on 5.1.1972, questioned the order of termination through writ
    petition No. 9484/74, which was dismissed by the High Court on 23.8.1974.
G   He allowed that order to acquire finality and later on filed a representation
    against termination of his services to the State which was also dismissed on
    16.9.1975. Undeterred, he once again questioned the order of termination
    by filing a petition before the U .P. Public Service Tribunal. That petition
    came to be dismissed on 4.4.1979. The petitioner filed yet another writ
H   petition No. 4536/79, for the same cause which was dismissed by the High
                                          258
                         AP. GUPTA v. STATE                              259

 Court on 16.8.1979. A review petition against that order was dismissed on A
 16.1.1980 and an application under Article 133 of the Constitution for a
 certificate of fitness seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was
 dismissed by the High Court on 26.3.1980. The petitioner filed special leave
 petition No. 536/81 which came to be dismissed by this Court on 13.2.1981.
 The petitioner has now filed yet another writ petition putting the same B
 termination order in issue. We take a serious view of the matter and
 condemn this practice of filing petition after petition. No litigant has a right
 to unlimited drought on court time and public money in order to get the
 affair settled in the manner he wishes. Finality of judicial proceedings must
.be accepted at some stage. We cannot allow the process of the court to be
 abused in the manner it has been done by the petitioner in this case. We C
 dismiss this writ petition with Rs. 5,000 as costs. The costs shall be
 deposited with the Registry, within eight weeks, in the account of Supreme
 Court Legal Services Authority.

T.N.A                                                    Petition dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "abuse of process"Sign in to search