JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impleading one private construction company and six other parties representing the State authorities and the Tata group company for a long list of reliefs (16 in nos.) extending from cancelling the lease agreement made by the State in favour of Tata Steel, to granting the petitioner a sub-lease of a plot of land. Almost, everything has been demanded in this writ petition, except for a slice of land over the moon. 2. What is at the root of this overblown and inflated list of reliefs is the grievance of the petitioner arising out of purchase of a flat in a multi storied apartment known as Dream Heights at Jamshedpur in April, 2016 built by Builder. One corridor was blocked in the apartment from both sides by grill gate and complained to the builders and other authorities and subsequently electricity and water connection were disconnected by the Respondent No.8 who is the builder Company claims that this is not a flat rather a commercial space which the petitioner who is a lawyer using for legal services and is not paying maintenance charges. CASE OF THE PETITIONER 3. The vendor had purchased the flat in an apartment from one Mr. Manoj Gulati who had purchased it from the Builder M/s Shashank Nidhi Construction Pvt Ltd (R-8). After purchasing the said flat, the petitioner found the East side staircase was permanently blocked under lock and key, and the corridor was blocked from both east and both side resulting in what is described as “negligible circulation of air causing congestion in gross violation of the terms of Jharkhand Apartment (Flat) Ownership Act, 2011. The invitees and guests of the petitioner complained about lack of oxygen in the corridor and as such suffocation and breathing problems on the occasion of inauguration of Petitioner’s office.” 4. Petitioner approached the Builder (R-8) and complained about the same, however R-8 remained non-committal. Petitioner moved the Jharkhand Notified Area Committee (JNAC) seeking relevant information which was not properly answered regarding the relevant information pertaining to the building. 5. There are further averments in the writ petition regarding one incidence of short circuit having taken place in the apartment in which one labour sustained burn injuries due to electrocution, thereafter some attempt was made to lodge FIR without success. 6. 5. There are further averments in the writ petition regarding one incidence of short circuit having taken place in the apartment in which one labour sustained burn injuries due to electrocution, thereafter some attempt was made to lodge FIR without success. 6. It is averred that electricity or maintenance bills were not furnished by the Builder (R-8) to the petitioner and R-8 disconnected the electricity supply from 26.02.2017 to the office of the said building illegally without any prior notice to the petitioner and also in gross violation of the agreement. After the said disconnection Petitioner lodged a complaint with the Police on 27.02.2017, but no action was taken on the said FIR, by the police. Restoration of electric connection was refused JUSCO illegally for want of no objection certificate from the Builder(R-8). 7. Despite all his efforts electric connection was not restored by JUSCO and further, on 17.03.2017 his water supply was disconnected. 8. On 21st March, 2017, the petitioner sent a mail requesting the Deputy Commissioner to direct the appropriate authority to demolish the illegal construction in the said apartment, but the said mail was not responded to. 9. Under RTI, it was informed by JNAC vide letter no.2309 dated 30.09.2016 regarding information the said building that there was no document relating to Dream Heights, south Park, Bistupur, Jamshedpur. 10. It is also averred that the said building was without any fire extinguisher installed on the day when accidently one labourer had suffered electrical burn injury in the building. Regarding which police refused to register FIR. 11. On 21st March, 2017, the petitioner sent a mail to the Deputy Commissioner to direct the appropriate authority to demolish the illegal construction of four illegally constructed flours and basement. The mail remained unreplied. 12. Special Officer of JNAC(R-2) sought clarification on illegal blocking of East side of the approach to stair case and lift and also blocking of air circulation consequently erected grills were removed. 13. Respondent no.7/JUSCO finally provided a new electricity connection on 16th July 2017 by charging a connection charge of Rs. 1,113,555/- albeit failed to reconnect the same as per existing agreement with petitioner. 14. Petitioner is aggrieved by disconnection of electric and water connection by JUSCO. 15. The petitioner’s grievance in sum and substance is that electricity and water were disconnected after taking occupation of the said Flat. 1,113,555/- albeit failed to reconnect the same as per existing agreement with petitioner. 14. Petitioner is aggrieved by disconnection of electric and water connection by JUSCO. 15. The petitioner’s grievance in sum and substance is that electricity and water were disconnected after taking occupation of the said Flat. Eastern side of the staircase was permanently blocked and in lock and key and the corridor was sealed from both East and West, having almost no or negligible circulation of air causing serious breathing congestion in gross violation of the terms of Jharkhand Apartment (Flat) Ownership Act, 2011. Petitioner could not get any redressal from competent authority, hence this writ. ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF JUSCO (R-7) 16. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.7- JUSCO that the dispute between the petitioner and builder who has been arrayed as respondent no.8, has given all the trapping of the writ case by making false submissions on affidavit. A specific reference is made to the prayer no.V which is for a direction in the nature of mandamus to respondent nos.1 and 2 to reconnect electricity and water supply connection of the petitioner illegally disconnected by respondent no.8. In this regard, para 56 of the writ petition has been cited wherein it has been stated that respondent finally provided a new electricity connection on 16th July, 2017 by charging a connection charge of Rs.1,113,555/-. This writ petition was filed in 2018, after the supply of electricity, but the said prayer has been made in para 5 of the prayer. 17. The petitioner had earlier agreed to confine his prayer of resumption of water supply which is reflected in the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.10.2022. However, in I.A. No.10611 of 2022 filed by the petitioner for modification of the order dated 12.10.2022, wherein in para 11 misleading statement has been made which read as under:- “That when the Order dated 12.10.2022 was perused by the petitioner he was appalled as the direction was to confine his prayer only for water in his petition and file an I.A. for that in four weeks, which as per the understanding of the petitioner would virtually convert the Writ Petition as a private dispute, rendering it invalid and bringing an end to the very writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court”. 18. 18. It is submitted in this regard that this was the statement and not direction of this Court and now resiling from such statement, the petitioner has made this contemptuous averment in the Interlocutory Application. The main grievance of getting water and electricity supply has been satisfied and the attempt to further procrastinate in this matter with an ulterior motive is misuse of writ jurisdiction. STAND OF RESPONDENT NO. 2-4 19. In the Counter affidavit filed, it is averred that on complaint having been received by the Petitioner, JNAC got the matter inspected by its Junior Engineer and notice was issued to the Builder who has made necessary rectification. 20. Building constructed by Respondent no.8 was regularized vide permit no.28161 dated 07.11.2012. 21. Providing civic amenities like electricity and water supply is under the jurisdiction of Tata Steel Ltd. where JUSCO is bound to provide civic amenities on fulfilment of certain terms and conditions. PLEA OF THE BUILDER R-8 22. That it is stated that the petitioner who is none other but is one of the legal practitioner of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, so also practices in several Districts Courts by forming a Law firm named as ‘Legal Access”. 23. Premises in question is not a flat as falsely pleaded rather it is a commercial space. 24. Without any prior intimation to the authorities in any manner, petitioner and the other purchaser of the said Office Space No.3, forcibly made altercation/deviation in the construction of the allocated space by breaking the wall and opened a two doors for one commercial unit, which create huge nuisance to the rest allottee/occupier. The said door is opened in the common space which creates nuisance and obstruction to the other residents of the society. Furthermore, the same is in complete violence of building permit no.28161, dated 07.11.2012 passed by JNAC making the answering respondent liable for prosecution thereof by the competent authority. 25. Petitioner after coming into occupation of the commercial space has avoided to pay the monthly maintenance, common amenities charges, other charges. ANALYSIS 26. Epicenter of the dispute revolves round the claims and counter claims advanced by the petitioner who had purchased flat/commercial space in apartment built by the Builder (R-8). 25. Petitioner after coming into occupation of the commercial space has avoided to pay the monthly maintenance, common amenities charges, other charges. ANALYSIS 26. Epicenter of the dispute revolves round the claims and counter claims advanced by the petitioner who had purchased flat/commercial space in apartment built by the Builder (R-8). The dispute started with the allegation of blocking of Eastern side of Corridor in the said apartment by erecting a grill under lock and key by the Builder, which snow balled into disconnection of electricity and water connection of the Petitioner’s flat. Against this backdrop, reliefs for cancellation of lease of Tata Steel by the State, to cancel the license granted to JUSCO for distribution of electricity, direction to Respondent nos.2, 6 & 7 to produce all its private agreements with builder in its commanding zone to be declared as invalid, null and void, so on and so forth. For direction to JNAC (R-2) for preventing unscrupulous builders and others to act in contempt of law from encroaching the public land. 27. Most of the reliefs are Public in nature which partakes of the character of a Public Interest Litigation under the garb of writ petition. 28. Indisputably electric connection had been offered to be restored conditionally as admitted in Para-56 of the writ petition, yet the same prayer for restoration has been made. 19. From the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, it is apparent that learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioner after initial argument submitted, “in the changed circumstance, the petitioner intends to confine his prayer made in the writ petition to the extent of resumption of water supply in the flat in question, which is being used by him as his office. He accordingly prays for four weeks’ time to file an interlocutory application to that effect”. No order was passed directing the Petitioner to confine its prayer , but the Petitioner has made contemptuous insinuation to the Court’s order in para 11 of the I.A. No.10611 of 2022 stating, he was appalled as the direction was to confine his prayer only for water in his petition and file an I.A. for that in four weeks. No order was passed directing the Petitioner to confine its prayer , but the Petitioner has made contemptuous insinuation to the Court’s order in para 11 of the I.A. No.10611 of 2022 stating, he was appalled as the direction was to confine his prayer only for water in his petition and file an I.A. for that in four weeks. Contrary to the statement made in the interlocutory application, there was no direction to confine the prayer to reconnect water connection, rather it was the counsel on behalf of the petitioner who had sought time for filing interlocutory application for it. Petitioner is none other than a lawyer himself who has made such irresponsible statement. 29. It will be pertinent to take note of some of the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in such frivolous litigation. It has been held in D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra, (2001) 2 SCC 221 21. The term “misconduct” has not been defined in the Act. However, it is an expression with a sufficiently wide meaning. In view of the prime position which the advocates occupy in the process of administration of justice and justice delivery system, the courts justifiably expect from the lawyers a high standard of professional and moral obligation in the discharge of their duties. Any act or omission on the part of a lawyer which interrupts or misdirects the sacred flow of justice or which renders a professional unworthy of right to exercise the privilege of the profession would amount to misconduct attracting the wrath of disciplinary jurisdiction. In the Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar [ (1976) 2 SCC 291 ] Krishna Iyer, J. said that the vital role of the lawyer depends upon his probity and professional lifestyle. The central function of the legal profession is to promote the administration of justice. As monopoly to legal profession has been statutorily granted by the nation, it obligates the lawyer to observe scrupulously those norms which make him worthy of confidence of community in him as a vehicle of justice — social justice. The Bar cannot behave with doubtful scruples or strive to thrive on litigation. Canons of conduct cannot be crystallised into rigid rules but felt by the collective conscience of the practitioners as right. The Bar cannot behave with doubtful scruples or strive to thrive on litigation. Canons of conduct cannot be crystallised into rigid rules but felt by the collective conscience of the practitioners as right. “Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise.” Foreseeing the role which the legal profession has to play in shaping the society and building the nation, Krishna Iyer, J. goes on to say: (SCC p. 302, para 25) “For the practice of law with expanding activist horizons, professional ethics cannot be contained in a Bar Council rule nor in traditional cant in the books but in new canons of conscience which will command the members of the calling of justice to obey rules of morality and utility, clear in the crystallized case-law and concrete when tested on the qualms of high norms — simple enough in given situations, though involved when expressed in a single sentence.” Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470 191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long-drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings) worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his. Should a litigant not be compensated for what he has lost for no fault? The suggestion to the legislature is that a litigant who has succeeded must be compensated by the one who has lost. The suggestion to the legislature is to formulate a mechanism that anyone who initiates and continues a litigation senselessly pays for the same. It is suggested that the legislature should consider the introduction of a “Code of Compulsory Costs”. 30. The suggestion to the legislature is to formulate a mechanism that anyone who initiates and continues a litigation senselessly pays for the same. It is suggested that the legislature should consider the introduction of a “Code of Compulsory Costs”. 30. This is a case where the writ petition has been filed in a dispute which is essentially private dispute between a builder-and purchaser of flat/commercial space, by impleading the State authorities. Multiple cause of action for multiple reliefs against multiple entities have all been rolled into one. If the FIR was not registered, the petitioner had alternative remedy, other than invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Court by impleading the Superintendent of Police. If there was any breach in construction of building norms, the matter could have been raised before appropriate forum, then to implead the Deputy Commissioner as a party along with the State authorities and file writ petition. What legal right of the petitioner was infringed on account of the lease made by the State in favour of Tata Steel and what locus the petitioner had to invoke the writ jurisdiction for cancellation of the said lease, is a question that has no answer. What is apparent that for purely private dispute for which the petitioner had adequate remedy under General Law, the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ Court has been invoked, which is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Misleading and factually incorrect pleadings and prayers have been made in the writ petition. Prayers for relief for electric reconnection which had already been restored at the time of filing of the writ application. Petitioner claims to be ‘appalled’ by the direction of this Court which were never made. In any case, the petitioner has efficacious remedy under General law for which extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not maintainable. Petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate forum for redressal of grievance. Under the circumstance, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA), within three months of the order. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Member Secretary, JHALSA, who in the event of non-payment shall proceed against the petitioner as per law for realization of said amount as a money decree. Writ Petition stands dismissed. I.A. if any, is also disposed of.