V. Rajyalakshmi and Others vs M. Babu Rao and Others

Challa Kodanda Ram, J.—This petition, at SR stage, is posted before this Court, raising office objection. Heard Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned Amicus Curiae, who is kind enough to assist this Court on behalf of Sri Ashok, petitioner/party-in-person. Sri Ashok, party-in-person, also made detailed submissions.

A reading of the writ affidavit would disclose that the petitioner is basically aggrieved with the method and manner of conduct of judicial proceedings in various fora and the inordinate delay which is caused in disposal of the cases, apart from the defects in obtaining order copies etc. To put it more simply, the petitioner has a general grievance with respect to the very judicial system and he feels that, on account of various steps which are involved in the judicial proceedings, in spite of his best efforts, he is unable to get justice and justice is denied to him by the players in the system by using technicalities and rules and regulations, sometimes which are really not applicable. However, in the end, what he challenges is the judgment and decree passed by a competent Court. Further, in this petition, he made various individuals as party-respondents in their personal capacity, right from the judicial officers, the advocates who had appeared at various stages and the advocates who had appeared for the respondents apart from the Station House Officers etc. The office raised objection with regard to the maintainability of writ petition against private individuals. In his anxiety to get a quick relief and redressal of the injustice meted out to him according to his version, the petitioner feels that a writ petition is a proper and appropriate remedy.

Unfortunately, the system governed by the rule of law, the rules and regulations which are framed, are the only way recognizable in a civil society for getting relief. The petitioner, being a party-in-person, cannot be said to be aware of all the niceties, rules and regulations and the procedure prescribed. The petitioner admits that, at one time, he sought the help of Legal Services Authority and, in fact, the Legal Services Authority had also provided necessary legal assistance through Counsels. However, the petitioner does not have confidence; as such, he feels that he is better equipped to put forward his case. Whatever may be the intention and opinion of the petitioner, in the ultimate analysis, there cannot be an exception either to the petitioner or to the Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, from adherence to the system and the procedure prescribed.

The question as to whether a competent civil Court judgment can be interfered with, in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, is settled by the judgment of the Constitution Bench (9-Judges) in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, . Though a different note is struck in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, , by a two-Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court, the ratio of the said judgment is doubted by the Supreme Court and the matter stands referred to a Larger Bench, in the case of Radhey Shyam and Another Vs. Chhabi Nath and Others, . However, now it is well settled principle, whenever a High Court is faced with two conflicting judgments, the High Court is bound to follow the earlier Larger Bench judgment in preference to the later Smaller Bench judgment. Accordingly, in the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble apex Court in Mirajkar''s case (supra), the office objection with regard to the maintainability of writ petition, is sustained. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to take appropriate steps with the assistance from a legally qualified person and get proper guidance to redress his grievance, in accordance with law. Office is directed to return the papers to the petitioner. I also place on record my deep appreciation for the efforts made by Sri M. Pitchaiah, amicus curiae, in assisting the Court, apart from patiently listening to the petitioner and explaining him the niceties and nuances of the legal system.