Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1012 (MP)

S. P. Anand v. State of M. P.

2003-08-26

DEEPAK VERMA, S.K.SETH

body2003
ORDER Deepak Verma -- 1. Petitioner appeared in person. We have heard him al length and perused the record. 2. In this petition filed as Pro Bono Publico, petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondents in the light of strike of junior doctors in Government hospitals, to render all possible medical help to patients visiting such hospitals. 3. The office had raised several objections with regard to maintainability of the said petition, one of such being that petition has been filed without pre-deposit of security deposit amounting to Rs. 2,000/-, as mandated by this Court in Writ Petition No. 988 of 1999, decided or 9.9.1999 [S.P. Anand v. State of M.P. and others]. With an intention to facilitate the petitioner to remove the defects, we had granted 10 days' time to the petitioner to remove the said defects. The petitioner die not remove the defects, thus, matter was listed again on 18.8.2003 before the Bench. 4. Note of non-compliance by petitioner was made by the Court on 18.8.2003 when the matter was listed before the Court. The matter came up again for hearing before this Bench today as admittedly, petitioner had failed to comply with the directions passed in his own petition earlier and repeated again in several other petitioners' petitions. However, looking to the serious repercussions of strike of doctors of Government hospital, dehors the petitioner's petition, we had given certain directions to the State Government through Addl. Advocate General Shri D.D. Vyas. 5. As directed on the last date of hearing, Shri D.D. Vyas submitted his compliance report and has given details of the medical help rendered to the patients who had visited the Government hospital, even during the strike period. The same was taken on record. It is also pertinent to mention here that the said strike has already been called off on 11.8.2003. In view of this, the petition has virtually been rendered infructuous, but the petitioner yet, audaciously has argued at length that he was not required to deposit the security cost of Rs. 2,000/- before his petition could be entertained by the Court. 6. After passing of the order in petitioner's own petition on 9.9.1999 atleast on 10 subsequent occasions, this Court has reiterated that no PIL would be entertained unless petitioner has deposited cost of Rs. 2,000/-. 2,000/- before his petition could be entertained by the Court. 6. After passing of the order in petitioner's own petition on 9.9.1999 atleast on 10 subsequent occasions, this Court has reiterated that no PIL would be entertained unless petitioner has deposited cost of Rs. 2,000/-. But, not being satisfied, the petitioner still had the audacity and bravery to advance arguments on the same very question which has been answered repeatedly against the petitioner on more than 10 occasions. 7. This time he has advanced arguments that since the order dated 9.9.1999 was passed behind his back without giving any opportunity of hearing to him, thus, the said order was non est, nullity and void ab initio. According to him, it was not required to be challenged in any Court, as the same was without jurisdiction. He has also submitted lengthy written submissions by way of his application, seeking permission to dispense with deposit of security cost. For the said purpose, he has cited various authorities to show that such a condition, being unreasonable, vitiates law and procedure both. 8. There is no dispute before us that the order dated 9.9.1999 has attained finality, as at no point of time, petitioner challenged the same in the Supreme Court. 9. We are indeed afraid, as long as the said order continues to hold the field, no exception to the same could have been rendered to the petitioner. The said order has, in fact, been confirmed after considering various other orders touching the same issue in several other petitioners’ petitions. Kindly see 2002 (1) JLJ 163 = 2002 (1) MPLJ 213 [S.P. Anand and another v. Union of India and others]. The Division Bench of this Court has held as under in para 5 of the said judgment, which is reproduced hereinbelow: "5. Petitioners have advanced the same point again. The view taken by this Court in three decisions is absolutely correct and justified. After all, this kind of litigation has to be regulated so that it does not become a weapon in the hands of one for causing harassment to others. Therefore, one of the safeguards is to provide for deposit of security so that the person who is involved in the litigation unnecessarily and without justification is compensated by the Court at the end of litigation. Therefore, one of the safeguards is to provide for deposit of security so that the person who is involved in the litigation unnecessarily and without justification is compensated by the Court at the end of litigation. Therefore, we find no justification to allow the submission of petitioners to dispense with this requirement and deal with this matter without removing defaults pointed out by the Registry. Even on merits, the petition does not disclose case for consideration and determination. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed". 10. Reading of the aforesaid para would make it crystal clear that the earlier orders, as also the order dated 9.9.1999, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit the security cost, have been approved and confirmed. 11. The arguments of the petitioner that order dated 9.9.1999 has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to him, is, not only misconceived but also fallacious. 12. To satisfy ourselves with regard to this, we have perused the original recon of Writ Petition No. 988 of 1999. We find from the same that, in fact, matter was heard on 17.8.1999 when the petitioner himself was present in person and it was then reserved for orders and orders were passed on 9.9.1999. Thus, he has advanced arguments which are wholly unfounded and are without any basis. 13. In the light of order passed in petitioner's case reported in 2002 (1) JLJ 163 = 2002 (I) MPLJ 213 , no further arguments could have been advanced but petitioner, in his brazenly manner, has argued the same very point for a considerable time. Even after arguing for a substantial time, he was not fully satisfied. The attitude of the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 14. Needless to say that he is in the habit of wasting valuable time of the Court. He has been warned time and again but we see no signs of any improvement. From his conduct, it is clear that petitioner is not going to mend his ways. 15. Even though it was a fit case where exemplary cost should have been imposed against the petitioner, but this time we refrain for doing so and issue him last warning for indulging in such fruitless litigations, in the fond hope that he might improve, failing which, the Court shall have no option but to impose heavy cost on him. 16. Even though it was a fit case where exemplary cost should have been imposed against the petitioner, but this time we refrain for doing so and issue him last warning for indulging in such fruitless litigations, in the fond hope that he might improve, failing which, the Court shall have no option but to impose heavy cost on him. 16. Consequently, the petition being devoid of any merit and substance, is hereby dismissed, as also on the ground of non-compliance of the directions, but with no order as to costs.