Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2015 (KER)

Asif Azad v. Shafna C.

2025-07-18

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. 1. The rule of law demands obedience to court orders. Disregard for court orders undermines the integrity of the justice system. The petitioner herein will appear only as a party in person; of course, there is no bar to the same. However, a litigant appearing as a party in person should be familiar with the basics of courtroom decorum, and he should know the consequences for making unnecessary submissions even after a warning. These two writ petitions are filed by Mr. Asif Azad, who appeared ‘party in person’ through online mode. The prayers in W.P.(Crl.) No.1150 of 2024 are extracted hereunder:- “1. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing any of the respondent No.9 to 12 or 13 to immediately lodge the FIR against respondent No.1 to 5 on Exhibit P1 (Exhibit P9 in WP(C) 36119/2024) under Sections 1(4), 1(5), 308(6), 311, 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS. 2. To allow this petition with cost.” [SIC] 2. The prayers in W.P.(C) No.36119 of 2024 are as follows :- “1. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing Respondent No.12 to immediately locate and collect the petitioner’s old passport, currently unlawfully retained by Respondents No.1 to 5, and hand it over to Respondent No.14 and additionally this honourable high court may direct Respondent No.14 to issue a new passport to the petitioner within 72 hours and forward it to Respondent No.15 and additionally, Respondent No.15 may direct to hand over both the newly issued passport and the old passport to the petitioner within 96 hours. 2. To allow this petition with cost.” [SIC] 3. When these writ petitions came up for consideration, the petitioner who appeared ‘party in person’ through online submitted that this Court should avoid these writ petitions, because this Court had earlier imposed cost on the petitioner in another proceeding. The petitioner also submitted that he has filed a complaint against me before the Hon’ble President of India and also before the Registrar General of this Court. According to the petitioner, he will not get justice from this Bench. Hence, he submitted that these cases are to be avoided by this Court. 4. The same petitioner appeared before this Court in W.P. (C) (Filing) No. 33689 of 2024 [ Asif Azad v. Jaimon Baby , 2025 KHC Online 757] and made the same submission before this Court. According to the petitioner, he will not get justice from this Bench. Hence, he submitted that these cases are to be avoided by this Court. 4. The same petitioner appeared before this Court in W.P. (C) (Filing) No. 33689 of 2024 [ Asif Azad v. Jaimon Baby , 2025 KHC Online 757] and made the same submission before this Court. This Court, after considering the above submission, observed like this in the above case:- “Mr. Asif Asad filed the above case, and he appeared in the case as ‘party in person’. The prayers in the writ petition are extracted hereunder: i. To issue a writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying petitions which is duly supported by an affidavit, It is most humbly prayed that in the interest of Natural Justice by restoring the violated constitutional and fundamental rights of Article 14, 20, 21 and 141 of Constitution of India by set-aside Exhibit P 8 and quash Exhibit P 5 of the Complaint Case dated 30.06.2018 lodged by respondent no. 1 registered as ST 2600/2018 under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act filed before Hon’ble First-Class Magistrate Court I Kottarakkara, Kollam. ii. To issue any other suitable order or direction in the nature to which this Hon’ble Court deems just proper in favour of the petitioner. iii. To allow this petition with cost. (SIC) 2. The writ petition was represented after curing the defects with a petition to condone the delay of 40 days in representation. This court issued notice to the 1st respondent on 04.11.2024 in the above delay condonation petition. Notice was returned with an endorsement ‘Adressee left’. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 13.06.2025, this Court passed the following order : “Petitioner will take steps to cure the defect within two weeks. If no steps are taken, Registry will post the matter in the defect list, after two weeks.” 3. Today, the petitioner appeared in person online and submitted that, this Court should avoid this writ petition because earlier this Court imposed a cost on the petitioner in another proceeding. The petitioner refused to submit anything else. The imposition of cost in one case will never lead to the imposition of cost in all the cases filed by the petitioner. Each case will be decided based on the merit of that particular case. The petitioner refused to submit anything else. The imposition of cost in one case will never lead to the imposition of cost in all the cases filed by the petitioner. Each case will be decided based on the merit of that particular case. A litigant cannot dictate to the Court that the case should be avoided by a Judge. The roster is prepared by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The Judge, who is hearing the case, can decide to avoid the case if necessary. But a litigant cannot dictate to the Court to avoid his case by a Judge who is allotted the jurisdiction by the Hon’ble Chief Justice as per the roster. If such a practice is started, the litigants can pick and choose the judge who has to hear their case. The same cannot be allowed. A Judge is bound to hear the cases allotted as per the roster notified by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Admittedly, this case is to be heard by this Court as per the present roster. The petitioner is not ready to argue the case before this Court. The submission of the petitioner itself is contemptuous. But I restrain myself from taking any action against the petitioner because the petitioner is appearing in person, and he may not be aware of the decorum of a court of law and the submission to be made in a court of law. But the petitioner had appeared before this court earlier in other cases also. If any such submissions are made in the future, this court will be forced to take action in accordance with the law. As far as the present case is concerned, no steps have been taken to cure the defect as ordered by this Court on 13.06.2025. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed for default.” 5. The above judgment was delivered by this Court on 08.07.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner again appeared before this Court today on 18.07.2025, i.e., just after ten days and made the same submission. The petitioner is also threatening this Court, stating that he has filed a complaint before the President of India and other authorities against me. The above judgment was delivered by this Court on 08.07.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner again appeared before this Court today on 18.07.2025, i.e., just after ten days and made the same submission. The petitioner is also threatening this Court, stating that he has filed a complaint before the President of India and other authorities against me. On 08.07.2025, this Court clearly stated that such submission made by the petitioner is contemptuous, and I restrained myself from taking any action against the petitioner because the petitioner is appearing in person, and he may not be aware of the decorum of a court of law and the submission to be made in a court of law. But the petitioner appeared again and made the same submission. I am told that the petitioner has made such submissions before the other Benches of this Court as well, because an adverse order was passed against him. My brother, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, dismissed a writ petition filed by the same petitioner after imposing costs. It will be better to extract the relevant paragraphs of that judgment, Asif Azad v. Union of India , 2023 (4) KHC 77 : “10. As mentioned earlier, the reliefs claimed by the petitioner are odious and repugnant to the orderly filing of writ petitions. The proclivity to file writ petitions without any basis and to threaten the system into ridicule cannot be permitted under any count. Access to justice, though a fundamental right, cannot be extended to a right to prefer misconceived and frivolous petitions. The nature of reliefs claimed for and the nebulous pleadings are indicative of absence of any particular right of the petitioner having been infringed. 11. Apart from the above, in the absence of violation of any specific right, a person cannot approach this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The nature of pleadings and the reliefs claimed for reveals that the writ petition is filed on an experimental basis and in bad taste. The manner in which the petitioner has raised his pleadings in the writ petition and the nature of reliefs sought compels this Court to visit the petitioner with costs as a disincentive for indulging in such frivolous writ petitions. 12. In this context the observation of the Supreme Court in Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran and Others, 1996 (5) SCC 530 is pertinent to be borne in mind. 12. In this context the observation of the Supreme Court in Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran and Others, 1996 (5) SCC 530 is pertinent to be borne in mind. It was observed therein that 'No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the courts time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a license to file misconceived or frivolous petitions'.” After the above judgment, I am told that he submitted before my brother, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, to avoid his subsequent cases. This is the practice of the petitioner. Now the petitioner is also threatening this court, alleging that he filed a complaint against me. At this stage, it will be beneficial to quote the words of Honourable Justice J.S. Kehar in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another v. Union of India , 2015 KHC 4708: “.....In my considered view, the prayer for my recusal is not well founded. If I were to accede to the prayer for my recusal, I would be initiating a wrong practice, and laying down a wrong precedent. A Judge may recuse at his own, from a case entrusted to him by the Chief Justice. That would be a matter of his own choosing. But recusal at the asking of a litigating party, unless justified, must never to be acceded to. For that would give the impression, of the Judge had been scared out of the case, just by the force of the objection. A Judge before he assumes his office, takes an oath to discharge his duties without fear or favour. He would breach his oath of office, if he accepts a prayer for recusal, unless justified. It is my duty to discharge my responsibility with absolute earnestness and sincerity. It is my duty to abide by my oath of office, to uphold the Constitution and the laws. My decision to continue to be a part of the Bench, flows from the oath which I took, at the time of my elevation to this Court.” (Underline supplied) With great respect, I am following the above words of Honourable Justice J.S. Kehar, who was our former Chief Justice of India. No other words need to be stated. My decision to continue to be a part of the Bench, flows from the oath which I took, at the time of my elevation to this Court.” (Underline supplied) With great respect, I am following the above words of Honourable Justice J.S. Kehar, who was our former Chief Justice of India. No other words need to be stated. I am confident that I am upholding the oath I have taken, and I am discharging my duty in accordance with the Constitution of India. When I have faith in it, I am not bothered about such threats. The petitioner is threatening this Court by stating that he approached the President of India and other authorities against me. I am least bothered about the complaint submitted by the petitioner before the authorities because I am exercising my judicial powers in accordance with the law and the Constitution of India. A person threatening this Court, stating that he filed a complaint against the Judge, and the case should be avoided by that Judge, cannot be accepted at all. Since the petitioner is not ready to argue these cases, these cases are to be dismissed. Even after giving a warning to the petitioner on 08.07.2025 in the judgment, which is extracted above, the petitioner is continuing to disobey the orders. I am of the considered opinion that these writ petitions are to be dismissed with heavy costs. Therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed. The petitioner will pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the High Court Legal Services Authority within one month. If the amount is not paid, the High Court Legal Services Authority is free to take appropriate steps to recover the same from the petitioner as per the Revenue Recovery Act.