Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs Registrar High Court of Chhattisgarh and Others

Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

By this petition, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

10.1 A writ of certiorari to direct the respondents to stop such an exercise in a judicial office.

10.2 A writ and/or an order or a direction as a structure that suchan exercise should be followed in its proper prospective valuing the authenticity of the case laws produced.

10.3 Any other reliefs, which Hon''ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

10.4 Cost of the petition may also be awarded.

The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that an application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act, 1988'') was filed and replies from the respondents were followed after being duly served. The learned Tribunal followed the procedures and evidences were led. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final hearing wherein the petitioner presented the citations which were refused to be taken by the Tribunal which forced the petitioner to move an application to take and consider the citations and precedents. However, the same was rejected and the award was passed by the Tribunal without appreciating the factual matrix in its proper perspective and ignoring the legal proposition that the power to order pay and recover can only be exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India. Hence, an appeal was preferred against the same u/s 173 of the Act, 1988 which was registered as M.A. (C) No. 689/2011 (Royal Sundaram Alliance General insurance Company Limited v. Ram Kumar & Others). In the memo of appeal, in ground No. E, the petitioner quoted that the vehicle insured by the appellant was being driven by the respondent No. 1 in contravention of the policy condition as well as the Act, 1988 which the learned Tribunal has itself held in the impugned order, and the case laws presented by the appellant was not considered as it was the copy obtained from internet site. It was further mentioned that the Hon''ble Judiciary has provided all the judicial officers with Lap Tops and the Internet facilities for them to be always updated with the latest decisions of the superior courts yet the Tribunal had not considered the case laws as they were not presented in books. The Tribunal should have called for the books available in the Court''s library for the perusal of the same. An application for the same was also moved but not considered by the Tribunal.

Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even after mentioning the same in the grounds of the appeal, it did not reflect in the order where it was even prayed during the argument that the Hon''ble Court should pass such a stricture on the same view where it could have been followed in the practice to reach a right end of justice.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

The petitioner is seeking a direction to the Registrar, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Law Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur and the Director, Judges Training Office, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur to stop such exercise in judicial office and further, that the Judges should call for the books from the Library and refer to the internet facility through computer provided to them if certain cases are cited by the learned counsels for the parties.

The prayer of the petitioner is vague and unsustainable. The petitioner has not pointed out asto in which case the judicial pronouncements were brought into the notice of the Court relying on a recognized judicial journals. Mere pointing out certain cases on the basis of internet information, does not absolve the learned counsel appearing for the parties from responsibility, as they are expected to cite relevant recognized journals and produce the same before the judicial officers.

In the instant case, it appears that the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur has passed the award in Claim Case No. 19/2011 on 21.04.2011. There against, an appeal was preferred before this Court in M.A.(C) No. 689/2011. The petitioner has failed to point out any error in the judicial process before the Hon''ble Court. The appeal was dismissed after having considered the submissions of the parties by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 19.10.2011.

Needless to mention that the Supreme Court has already settled the issue with regard to issue of a writ of certiorari. (See: Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani (Since Deceased) and after him his legal representatives (a) Govindram Khushaldas and (b) Ramchandra Khushaldas & Others1, T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa & Another2, Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member of Board of Revenue, Bihar & Another3, Prabodh Verma & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others4, Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar5 and Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Others6).

The petitioner, by way of this petition, which is not sustainable, is trying to re-agitate the issue on the grounds which are neither germane, relevant, specific nor clear. It is a misuse and abuse of judicial process with ulterior motive by misleading the Court.

In view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed with exemplary cost to the tune of Rs. 25000/- payable to the High Court Legal Aid Committee.