Dr. Nutan Thakur vs Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and Others

Heard Mr. Ashok Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Dr. Ashok Nigam, learned Additional Solicitor General of India.

The Petitioner is said to be an social activist associated with different organisations and wife of a police officer, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to kindly direct the concerned Respondents to initiate suitable legal and Constitutional actions to remove all those Judges of the High Court of Allahabad, including its Lucknow Bench against whom complaints have been received by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India as mentioned in its judgment dated 26.10.2010 in Civil Appellate Jurisdiction in SLP (Civil) No. 31797 of 2010 Raza Khan v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board and Anr.

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents that all those Judges against whose conduct serious complaints have been received to the Supreme Court be not allotted any judicial work during the pendency of the enquiry and impeachment process.

(C) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to stop all the pension and other benefits of those of the retired Judges who are found to be gravely indicted in such enquiries by these Enquiry committees.

(d) Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to initiate criminal proceedings against all those Judges who are found to be gravely indicted to the extent of criminal misconduct in such enquiries by these Enquiry committee.

(e) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

It appears that the Petitioner had taken note of the recent judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court passed in SLP (Civil) No. 31797 of 2009 Raja Khan v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board and another. It has been submitted by Mr. Ashok Pandey, the Petitioner''s counsel that since the Hon''ble Supreme Court has made certain observations with regard to Allahabad High Court and its Lucknow Bench, appropriate action may be taken against all such Judges against whom some material exists. He further submits that all those Judges against whom observation has been made by Hon''ble Supreme Court raising doubts upon their integrity may be removed.

On the other hand, Dr. Ashok Nigam, learned Addl. Solicitor General of India submits that Special Appeal was filed against the orders of Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court before a Division bench of this Court at Allahabad. The Special Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court and the orders passed by Hon''ble Single Judge were set aside. He furthers submits that the error committed by the learned Single Judge was set at right by the Division Bench of this Court while sitting in appellate jurisdiction by setting aside the orders passed by learned Single Judge. It is the appellate order passed by the Division Bench which was subject matter of dispute before Hon''ble Supreme Court.

It appears that the Petitioner has made vague allegations. No cogent material has been put forth by the Petitioner while raising her grievance . The Petitioner seems to be interested for publication of her name in the newspaper while approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition exclusively seems to be based on the observation made by Hon''ble Supreme Court which cannot be the subject matter of adjudication by this Court, more so when no material has been placed while preferring the writ petition. In case, the Petitioner feels that the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court requires some consideration at any level, then she may approach appropriate forum.

The writ petition, being misconceived, is dismissed. No order as to costs.