T. Ashok Surana vs Union of India and Others

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.

The petitioner seeks to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to raise the issue of "Manifestly wrong and palpably absurd decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Transcore''." To say the least, completely inappropriate language he has used, even if the petitioner is not happy to any Judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The petitioner is not a layman and does converse matters in person before Court. The Registry raised objection while scrutinizing the papers as to how the writ petition would be maintainable for the relief which is sought - declaring the ''Transcore'' Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court as per incuriam and thereby action of secured creditors on simultaneous proceedings without permission from the Honourable DRT is declared illegal and strike out all such proceedings pending in the DRT/DRAT/this Court.

The petition was however represented with the note that the question raised is a pure challenge to the Constitution validity of the declared law in the Judgment of Transcore Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, . No dates and events have been filed and it is claimed to be power challenged to the authority declaring the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court.

It is the say of the petitioner that there are a catena of Judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court that a conflict of law had a different statute should not be permitted. What could arise according to the petitioner, if in Original Application under the DRT Act without withdrawing by complying the provisions of the two Acts on the same given said facts. It is thus, pleaded that the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Transcore case is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Since these articles are part of Doctrine of the Structure of the Constitution, they cannot be advocated. It is pleaded that this Judgment is "fundamentally flaw, manifestly wrong and palpably absurd".

We may note that the petitioner had earlier also filed a Public Interest Litigation relating to the issue of Limitation under SARFAESI Act as pleaded under paragraph-23, which was dismissed with costs has been extenuated with oblique motive, apart from other reasons. Copy of the order has not been ofcourse placed on record.

We are of the view that the petition of this nature is not maintainable before this Court. In the hierarchy of courts, the Judgment of a superior court is binding on the inferior court, if principle is violated, case would follow. It is not an issue that qua the two Acts in question, there is an authoritative pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court in Transcore case. This Court cannot revisit the issue. It is not a case of conflict of the Judgments of the Supreme Court where one has to look into the views of a Larger Bench insofar as these two enactments are concerned, the relevant Judgment is Transcore case. Other Judgments referred to are in general relating to different statute and different situations.

We are of the view that to evade the possible liability arising in respect of the proceedings taken out against the petitioner, he is filing one and proceeding on the other. Not only that, the language used by him, to say least is an offensive and cannot be permitted. We, thus, dismiss this writ petition with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Chennai, within a period of 15 days from today.