Supreme CourtDivision Bench

Ajit Prasad Gupta vs State of U.P. and others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 10 July 1997 · Citation: AIR 1997 SC 3425 : (1997) AIRSCW 3508 : (1997) 6 JT 593 : (1997) 3 RLW 363 : (1997) 5 SCALE 40 : (1997) 6 SCC 279 : (1997) SCC(L&S) 1446 : (1997) 2 SCR 258 Supp : (1997) 6 Supreme 505 : (1997) 2 UJ 456 : (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1666

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.T. Thomas, J · A. S. Anand, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 133
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Civil) No. ...... (D. 21228 of 1996)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 320 words
1.

This case has been called even after the list is revised, but nobody appears.

2.

A perusal of the writ petition shows that filing of this petition is a total abuse of the process of this Court. The petitioner, whose services were terminated on 5-1-1972, questioned the order of termination through writ petition No. 9484/74, which was dismissed by the High Court on 23-8-1974. He allowed that order to acquire finality and later on filed a representation against termination of his services to the State which was also dismissed on 16-9-1975. Undeterred, he once again questioned the order of termination by filing a petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. That petition came to be dismissed on 4-4-1979. The petitioner filed yet another writ petition No. 4536/79, for the same cause which was dismissed by the High Court on 16-8-1979. A review petition against that order was dismissed on 16-1-1980 and an application under Article 133 of the Constitution for a certificate of fitness seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed by the High Court on 26-3-1980. The petitioner filed SLP No. 536/81 which came to be dismissed by this Court on 13-2-1981. The petitioner has now filed yet another writ petition putting the same termination order in issue. We take a serious view of the matter and condemn this practice of filing petition after petition. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on court time and public money in order to get the affair settled in the manner he wishes. Finality of judicial proceedings must be accepted at some stage. We cannot allow the process of the court to be abused in the manner it has been done by the petitioner in this case. We dismiss this writ petition with Rs. 5.000/- as costs. The costs shall be deposited with the Registry, within eight weeks, in the account of Supreme Court Legal Services Authority.