Judgment 1. Today, a mention slip was tendered and a mention was made upon it that in lieu of the present petition, that is, C.W.J.C. No. 5017 of 2000 another petition may permitted to be replaced. The request on the face of it appears innocent and innocuous. An earlier writ petition registered as C.W.J.C. No. 5017 of 2000; Rameshwar Prasad Singh and other V/s. The State of Bihar and others, is pending for consideration. This petition was filed during the summer vacation, on 6 June 2000. In this case the petitioners are : 1. Rajesh Kumar Thakur, 2. Anwar Hussain, 3. Rakesh Kumar Kanadia, 4. Manoj Kumar Sinha, 5. Rameshwar Prasad Singh and 6. Mithilesh Kumar Kalind. 2. Perhaps this petition was taking its time to move up in its turn. This is only logical, that matters should be listed in their turn. 3. On the mention slip, filed today, a request is also being made that a subsequently filed case by the same petitioners be listed out of turn. Advantage, apparently, is being taken of the new system of filing cases by which a defect free case is placed before the Court, the next day, if not, the day after. But, even these cases came up in their turn. The case in which the mention is being made had been filed four days ago i.e., 21 September 2000. It was up before an Hon ble Judge on 22 September 2000. It carries a judicial order egarding an adjournment that the matter be put up on 27 September 2000 under the same heading in the supplementary list. Perhaps it was not disclosed to the Hon ble Judge that an earlier petition had been filed by the same petitioners. This petition does not refer to the earlier petition. In those circumstances, the petitioners on the second petiton materially not different than the first petition, have suppressed facts from the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. 4. The second petition, registered as CWJC No. 9713 of 2000. (Rajesh Kumar Thakur & ors. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) is coming up before an Hon ble Judge, tomorrow. In second petition CWJC No. 9713 of 2000; (Rajesh Kumar Thakur & ors. vs. The State of Bihar and ors.) the petitioners are shown in the left column and those of the first petition in the right hand column, as below : 1. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) is coming up before an Hon ble Judge, tomorrow. In second petition CWJC No. 9713 of 2000; (Rajesh Kumar Thakur & ors. vs. The State of Bihar and ors.) the petitioners are shown in the left column and those of the first petition in the right hand column, as below : 1. Rajesh Kumar Thakur 1. Rameshwar Prasad Singh. 2. Anwar Hussain 2. Rajesh Kumar Thakur. 3. Rakesh Kumar Kanadia 3. Anwar Hussain. 4. Manoj Kumar Sinha 4. Rakesh Kumar Kanujia. 5. Rameshwar Prasad Singh 5. Rajendra Kishore 6. Mithilesh Kumar Kalindi 6. Manojr Kumar Sinha. 7. Mithilesh Kumar Kalindi (CWJC No. 9713 of 2000) (CWJC 5017 of 2000) 5 Thus, it would be seen that all these petitioners in the second writ petition are the same as those who had filed the first petition. They could not wait their turn on the earlier petition and by suppressing facts have filed the second petition. 6. Thus, this is hoodwinking the Court. The Writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not meant for such sharp practices. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not meant for those litigants, who come to Court to play dice and ball with the management of court dockets. The Court cannot permit any litigant to jump the queue by filing two cases in the same court by the same parties on the same subject matter. The case which is pending may be considered for being taken up out of turn if good and sufficient grounds are made out and the Court is in position, at its discretion, to permit an out of turn listing. 7. The pending docket explosion is not of the Courts making. There are several factors to name a few. These factors work jointly or severally. These factors are : Depleted judge-man-power with the High Court not functional with its full sanctioned strength. Frivolous litigations on which a chapter may be written. Lack of advice that in all matters of life, public or private, litigations may not be the solution, and who will control the quality of advice ? The Bar. The Court will see a case only after it is filed. Frivolous litigations on which a chapter may be written. Lack of advice that in all matters of life, public or private, litigations may not be the solution, and who will control the quality of advice ? The Bar. The Court will see a case only after it is filed. Then there is an unbending knotted bureaucracy which does not respond to peoples grievances as a first step, for citizens who have a problem with State functionaries who will not move to take the initiative to solve a problem. Not to be excluded are factors of man hours lost, a reality which no one can escape and very few accept. Of strikes, agitations, adjournments, which keep sending cases from court to the record room and back to the court and this cycle of listing goes on and on. There are also reforms which have been suggested to the substantive laws of the nation to make an effective, speedier relief giving institutions in law courts, by eliminating outdated procedures and out moded multistoreyed tiered structure, which is becoming heavy for the foundation of the legal system. 8. All these are matters can be sorted out. Each factor can be eliminated to make a faster moving public justice system. But, this can happen on a dialogue, in discussions, all in peace. Irregular procedures to push a case in Court is the antithesis to a solution. Threats to resist a change and avoid a dialogue is a regressive trait which will relapse a system. 9. The prerogative writ jurisdiction of the High Court has been structured and is available at the discretion of the Court. It may be made clear that this is not a writ of right. As these petitioners have materially suppressed the facts from the High Court, the Court will not lend its discretion to them, and, accordingly, both their writ petitions (CWJC Nos. 5017 and 9713 of 2000) are dismissed. 10. The Registry of the Court will take notice of this aspect and should it finds out two similar petitions on the same subject matter by the same party then it will put up a report for the Court. 5017 and 9713 of 2000) are dismissed. 10. The Registry of the Court will take notice of this aspect and should it finds out two similar petitions on the same subject matter by the same party then it will put up a report for the Court. A request is also made to the establishment of the Advocate General and the establishment of the Senior Standing Counsel, Central Government, that should it find repeated petitions on the same subject matter by the same party for the same cause then this will be brought to the notice of the Registry of the Court.