JUDGMENT : 1. The several averments in the writ petition are scandalous and it is surprising that the petitioner, who is, said to be a Professor in a University, has chosen to draft and file such a writ petition. His understanding of the meaning of Article 32 of the Constitution is, to say the least, preposterous. The allegations made are reckless and disclose irresponsibility on the part of the petitioner. This writ petition is wholly misconceived and is an abuse of the process of the Court. The writ petition has no merit. 2. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 3. In view of the attitude of the petitioner even at the hearing, when he persisted in this stand and, on our asking him, reintegrated that he stood by the scandalous averments made therein, we consider it our duty to issue to the petitioner a notice to show cause why proceedings to punish him for contempt of this Court should not be initiated against him. The Registry to take the necessary steps for registering the matter-as a contempt petition. The petitioner who is present in person is given notice of the contempt petition. He is required to file his reply within four weeks to show cause why proceedings for contempt should not be initiated against him. We request the learned Solicitor General to assist the Court in this contempt matter. 4. List the matter after notice of the date fixed by Registry is given to Dr. D.C. Saxena and the Solicitor General. 5. A copy of the paper book be also sent to the Solicitor General.