Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1169 (MP)

S. P. Anand v. Union of India

2003-10-20

DEEPAK VERMA, S.K.SETH

body2003
JUDGMENT Petitioner Shri S.P. Anand, In person. He is heard on the question of admission. This writ petition has been filed for the following reasons: "1. By an order, direction or writ as deemed just. The R. Nos. 1 and 2 be kindly directed to issue a public notification declaring that Art. 370 is no more operative, so as to bring equality between all the States of BHARA T and between their residents and citizens." The UOI be kindly directed to stop providing any funds whether by way of GRANT-IN-AID or in other manner whatsoever, till the State of Jammu and Kashmir agrees to accept and adopt the part VI: and all other provisions of Indian Constitution in full and renders its own Constitution no more operative to bring uniformity between this State of J and K and all other States which had also acceded to BHARA T under similar INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION and equality between all the States and residents and citizens of INDIA recalling EQUALITY is one of our basic structure of in our Mother-law called Constitution of India as it stands to-day, to ensure that there is no other demand permitted to grow up in BHARA T claiming a separate Constitution and status as was unjustly and unconstitutionally then granted to that State by those in power then doing lot of injustice to other STATES then by this discriminatory action. It be kindly declared that accession to India then made by execution of same Instrument of Accession as was executed by other around 500 States was full and complete and unconditional and cannot be questioned by the residents of the State of J & K and that offer made in the private letter addressed to the then Maharaja was ULTRA VIRES and beyond the authority of the then Governor General Lord Mountbatten and same is the fate of what had been stated before the Security Council as urged above. And such declaration and reliefs be kindly granted on the question of the legality of the manner in which Constitution of India stood enacted and adopted after 15.7.1948 without seeking fresh election of the new Constituent Assembly to enact a MOTHER-law for free India to meet its aspirations. And such declaration and reliefs be kindly granted on the question of the legality of the manner in which Constitution of India stood enacted and adopted after 15.7.1948 without seeking fresh election of the new Constituent Assembly to enact a MOTHER-law for free India to meet its aspirations. And, such other reliefs as deemed fit be kindly granted by way of final reliefs and or ad-interim reliefs to meet the ends of justice, even, suo motu and ex-debito justice if they are so deserved." We have heard the petitioner at length for more than two hours. The sum and substance of the whole argument of the petitioner is that the respondents are violating Art. 370 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner Art. 370 is a temporary provision and on account of non-action of the respondent it has been rendered meaningless. Petitioner has cited several decision of the Supreme Court. In our considered opinion all those decisions are irrelevant and have no bearing on the so called controversy, raised by the petitioner of this petition. After going through the writ petition it appears, that the petitioner has made reckless allegations and is projecting his own interpretation, gone, by history and the past political events. It appears that the petitioner is aggrieved by the commitments made by the politicians at the time of partition. The petition does not involve any breach of Fundamental or Constitutional right. In the matter of 1998 (2) JLJ 296 = AIR 1998 SC 2615 Union of India and another v. S.P. Anand and others it has been observed by the Supreme Court, wherein the petitioner was the respondent, as under: "At the stage of preliminary hearing of a writ petition, the High Court, before issuing a notice to the respondent, has to guard against the Court being used as a forum for gaining publicity by the person or persons moving the writ petition. The need for such caution is greater when a person holding a high constitutional office is impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition or when matters of policy are involved." In the instant writ petition respondent No.3 Shri L.K. Advani, Deputy Prime Minister has been impleaded by name. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 has committed breach of the electoral promises before he was elected as a Member of the Parliament and inducted in the Council of Ministers. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 has committed breach of the electoral promises before he was elected as a Member of the Parliament and inducted in the Council of Ministers. The observations made by the Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 272 (S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda and others) are also relevant. The Supreme Court observed in the aforesaid case as under: "On issues of constitutional laws, litigants who can lay no claim to have expert knowledge in that field should refrain from filing petitions, which are often drafted in a casual and cavalier fashion giving an extempore appearance not having had even a second look. It is of utmost importance that those who invoke Supreme Court's jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well versed. Such a litigant must not succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave like a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing publicity." It would be relevant to mention here that for the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, petitioner himself had filed a writ petition which was registered as M.P. No. 511 of 1990 and after hearing the petitioner the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 30th Oct. 1996. Since the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner for the same relief was dismissed by this Court, therefore, the present writ petition, in our considered opinion, is not maintainable, as it is hit by the principles of res judicata. The earlier dismissal order was not challenged by the petitioner in appeal, therefore, the same has become final. Any observations made in para 18 of the earlier order would not give a fresh cause of action to the petitioner to file and pursue this writ petition. Thus, we find that there is no merit and substance in the writ petition. Before parting with the case, we would like to observe that under the High Court Rules and Orders, which has been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Art. 225 of the Constitution of India, a writ petition has to be filed in the prescribed format which is appended to the Rules. We trust and hope that in future the petitioner while filing writ petitions would observe and follow the High Court Rules and Orders. We trust and hope that in future the petitioner while filing writ petitions would observe and follow the High Court Rules and Orders. In case the Rule is violated or is not followed, office is directed not to entertain such petitions. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. The security deposit made by the petitioner is directed to be refunded to the petitioner, after due verification.