Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. The petitioner appellant has played a game with the process of the Court and has taken full advantage to make a mockery of it. 2. The petitioner appellant has filed five cases in two High Courts: (1) A writ petition vide CO. No. 10509 of 1982 at the Calcutta High Court, (2) CWJC No. 3159 of 1998 at the Patna High Court, (3) CWJC No. 7852 of 1999 at Patna High Court, (4) CWJC No. 11743 of 2000 at Patna High Court and (5) the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 611 of 2002. For 20 years the appellant has kept the administration of the respondent Union of India in litigation in one High Court to another. 3 The details have been given by the learned Judge while deciding CWJC No. 11743 of 2000 in his order dated 12 April 2002, challenged in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. The appellant was a Naik with the Railway Protection Force. He was charged with the allegation that 12 bags of mustard seeds were found stolen from a railway wagon which stopped at Maharajpur Railway Station in the District of Sahebganj (then in the State of Bihar). This gave rise to a criminal case. While in the Criminal case, the police submitted a final report which was accepted by the Court, in the departmental proceeding the charges against the appellant were established. He was given a show cause notice on the proposed punishment of removal from service. He moved the Calcutta High Court challenging the disciplinary proceeding. By an interim order of the Calcutta High Court, the appellant was allowed to continue in service. Subsequently, when the writ petition was called to hearing after 16 years the Calcutta High Court came to the conclusion that the writ petition filed by the appellant was without jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed. Impliedly it meant that the writ petition, if it was to be filed, it ought to have been filed before the Patna High Court and not before the Calcutta High court. By this time the appellant had retired. He was conscious of the fact that the proceedings before the Calcutta High Court were without jurisdiction. The appellant now approached the Patna High Court for his retirement dues. The Court dismissed the petition but asked the authority concerned to dispose off the appellants representation claiming his reitrement benefits. By this time the appellant had retired. He was conscious of the fact that the proceedings before the Calcutta High Court were without jurisdiction. The appellant now approached the Patna High Court for his retirement dues. The Court dismissed the petition but asked the authority concerned to dispose off the appellants representation claiming his reitrement benefits. Before the concerned authority the appellant took the plea that the disciplinary proceeding had been stayed by the Calcutta High Court and, thus, the disciplinary proceedings had remained in abeyance. The petitioner was now playing games with technicalities. 5. While in the earlier petition before the Patna High Court the appellant was claiming retirement benefits, he filed another petition for quashing the disciplinary proceedings. But, for this he had been before the Calcutta High Court. Again the petition was dismissed; but, on a plea of the appellant he was permitted to file a representation or an objection to consider whether the pending disciplinary proceedings, challenged before the Calcutta High Court unsuccessfully, should proceed to consider the dismissal of the petitioner. The petitioner appellant filed a representation and the disciplinary authority passed a considered detailed order imposing the punishment of removal from service. 6. The crux of the matter is that the petitioner-appellants misdemeanor was for the loss of 12 bags of mustard seeds for which he faced charges in the departmen- tal inquiry. The fact is that the appellant arranged to ward off the ultimate result of the inquiry by taking the respondents to two High Courts. Neither equity nor law is in his favour. 7. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the High Court needs to remind, protect and guide itself for future. If the law has not created a remedy then at the time of deciding a writ petition the High Court should not appear to be carving out a jurisdiction in permitting a petitioner to file a representation when the statute may not have provided for it. The present case is one of such instance which shows how a litigatious citizen and his legal advisors for the business of their profession may play havoc with the process of the law. If the law does not provide for making a representation, the High Court should refrain from opening a door for the askance, so readily. The present case is one of such instance which shows how a litigatious citizen and his legal advisors for the business of their profession may play havoc with the process of the law. If the law does not provide for making a representation, the High Court should refrain from opening a door for the askance, so readily. Otherwise it will lead to disastrous results and multiplicity of litigation as in the present case. In only rare cases of glaring and prima facie arbitrary state action should a remedy of representation beyond the statute should be considered. 8. By now over the years, thousands of examples are available where the High Court has permitted a petitioner to file a representation which the law has not provided. An order passed on the representation, not provided by statute, has resulted in another writ petition. Another direction in the subsequent writ petition, if not carried out within the time indicated by the High Court, has resulted in a contempt action and if the action to purge the contempt action was avoided by the State authorities, then, it was challeged by a Letters Patent Appeal or a intra court appeal. If this matter is looked at closely, the subsequent cases were generated without cause because the High Court was virtually granting a largesse to the petitioner when the statute makes no provision for it. From one case, playing with the process of the Court, the petitioner engineered five cases between two High Courts, not counting the representations and the departmental proceedings. Dismissed. Shashank Kumar Singh, J. 9 I agree.