AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner in person is not present.
Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1, Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3, are present.
On 15.07.2022 and 22.07.2022, the following two orders were passed:
"15.07.2022
None for petitioner.
Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, counsel for the Respondent.
Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, counsel for Respondent No. 3.
Though, this petition has been filed by the petitioner in person. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, when the matter is called on second occasions.
As a last opportunity, let this matter be listed for hearing in the next week."
"22.07.2022
On 15.07.2022, the following order was passed:
"None for petitioner.
Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, counsel for the Respondent.
Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, counsel for Respondent No.3.
Though, this petition has been filed by the petitioner in person. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, when the matter is called on second occasions.
As a last opportunity, let this matter be listed for hearing in the next week."
Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
Note of the Registry indicates that the petitioner in person is informed telephonically regarding listing of the case today.
List again on 19.09.2022 as a fresh case.
Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1, Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3, are present."
As it is evident from the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner was not present on both the occasions.
In respect of Sl.No. 3(A), namely, "Particulars of the cause/order against which the petition is being preferred", it is stated by the petitioner as follows:
"Many sections of Judiciary are not adhering to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India".
Facts of the case at Sl.No. 8, read as follows:
"Many sections of Judiciary are not adhering the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India."
We are of the considered opinion that this petition does not deal with any issue relating to public interest and accordingly, the petition is dismissed.