Ram Snehi vs Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. and Another

S. S. Nijjar, J.—On 18th November, 2004, we have heard the Petitioner in person at length and passed the following order in this case:

Heard the Petitioner in person at length.

Dismissed.

Separate detailed reasons to follow.

At this stage, the Petitioner has again appeared in Court and requested that a copy of the judgment be sent to his residence to enable him to move

the Supreme Court.

Here, we give the reasons.

Given the facts of this case and the obstinate behaviour of the Petitioner, it would be apt to reproduce some observations of Lord Denning M.R.

in ""The Due Process of Law"", London Butterworths, 1980, under the heading ""In the face of the Court-in my own presence"",

which are as under:

xx xx xx

Later on, when 1 was sitting as a Lord Justice in the same Court with Lord Justice Bucknill, it was similar but not the same. It was a hot day.

Counsel were talking a lot of hot air. A man got up with his stick and smashed the glass window. To let in some fresh air, I suppose. At any rate

we did not commit him for contempt of Court. We sent him off to Bow Street to be dealt with for malicious damage.

Still later, when I was presiding, we became more lenient. On every Monday morning we hear litigants in person. Miss Stone was often there. She

made an application before us. We refused it. She was sitting in the front row with a bookcase within her reach. She picked up one of

Butterworth''s ""Workmen''s Compensation Cases"" and threw it at us. It passed between Lord Justice Diplock and me. She picked up another.

That went wide too. She said, ""I am running out of ammunition"". We took little notice. She had hoped we would commit her for contempt of court-

just to draw more attention to herself (Emphasis Supplied). As we took no notice. She went towards the door. She left saying: ""1 congratulate

your Lordships on your coolness under fire.

The Petitioner in this case had created a somewhat similar atmosphere. Hence the preface to the judgment.

Earlier, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No. 14569 of 2000, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. This writ

petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of K.S. Kumaran and N.K. Sud. JJ. on 31st October, 2000. The Division Bench

appointed Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate as counsel for the Petitioner from the State Legal Services Authority. The matter was adjourned to 8th

November, 2000. As the aforesaid Advocate had shifted to Haridwar, on 8th November, 2000, the Division Bench appointed Mr. S.S. Rana,

Advocate, on behalf of the Petitioner. The matter was adjourned to 22nd November, 2000. Another Division Bench consisting of R.S. Mongia

and K.C. Gupta, JJ., on 7th February, 2001 issued Notice of motion for 2nd May, 2001. It appears on 2nd May, 2001, the matter was

adjourned to 4th September, 2001. On 2nd July, 2001, the Petitioner filed Civil Misc. Application No. 16341 of 2001, stating therein that the

Petitioner is out of service since long and is passing through financial crisis. He, therefore, prayed that the hearing of the writ petition be pre-poned.

The Petitioner appeared in person. He stated that he does not want the assistance of the counsel who had been assigned to appear on his behalf.

The application for preponment was dismissed.

In the aforesaid petition, the Respondents appeared and filed a written statement. The Respondents had raised a number of preliminary

objections which are as follow:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

The answering Respondents are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since it is not an instrumentality

of State within the scope, meaning and ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This has been held by several High Courts, including a

Division Bench of this Hon''ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 8014/96 Ram Snehi v. IFFCO and Ors."". True copy of the judgment is

annexed herewith as Annexure R-l. Following this judgment, six other matters were disposed of as not maintainable against the answering

Respondent by this Hon''ble court. These matters being:

CWP No. 357 of 1981- AK Mahant v. IFFCO and Ors..

CWP No. 488 of 1982--Tirlochan Singh v. IFFCO and Ors..

CWP No. 10402 of 1989--C.P. Arora v. IFFCO and Ors..

CWP No. 10402 of 1989--Dhani Ram and Ors. v. IFFCO.

CWP No. 11364 of 1989-Sukha Ram and Ors. v. IFFCO.

CWP No. 1006-Sucha Singh and Ors. v. IFFCO.

* Copies of these judgments shall be produced at the time of hearing.

* The Respondent is a Multi-State Co-operative Society registered under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984(51 of 1984). The

Respondent has also been held not to be a ""State"" as per the judgments of other High Courts cited below.

(i) CWP No. 2004 of 1990 (Laxman Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative-Limited), decided on 8th

November, 1990 by Division Bench of Hon''ble High Court.

(ii) CWP No. 139 of 1986 (Chhitar Singh v. IFFCO decided on 10th March, 1986 by the Rajasthan High Court.

(iii) Special Civil Application No. 2025 of 1983 (S.S. Saxena v. IFFCO) decided on 1st October, 1991 by the Gujarat High Court.

(iv) CWP No. 6143 of 1984 (Shyam Lal v. IFFCO and Ors.) decided on 11th February, 1992 by a Single Judge of Allahabad High Court.

(v) CWP No. 7303 of 1993 (Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Ltd. and Anr. v. IFFCO and Ors.) decided on 15th October, 1993 by a

Division Bench of Patna High Court.

(vi) Ram Avtar and Anr. v. IFFCO 1992(1) Western Law Cases, 700 (Rajasthan).

(vii) MAT No. 3815 of 1998 (Shri Pawan Industries v. Union of India and Ors.) decided on 3rd March, 1999 by the Hon''ble High Court at

Calcutta.

(b) A perusal of the aforesaid judgments makes it amply clear that the Respondent is not ""State"" or ""Authority"" within Article 12 of the Constitution

of India and thus the present writ petition is not maintainbale and is liable to be dismissed.

(c) All the High Courts mentioned above have exhaustively considred the working, set up and Bye laws of the answering Respondent and also the

reasoning adopted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in several judgments in construing whether a particular body was State or not and laying down

the tests therefore and have held that the Respondent is not a ""State"".

(d) The Petitioner has no where in his writ petition has submitted that the Respondent is a State and is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this

Hon''ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

That the Petitioner has not come to this Hon''ble Court with clean hands. The Petitioner himself was the Petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition

No. 8014 of 1996. In this writ petition this Hon''ble High Court has decided that a writ is not maintainable against the answering Respondents. The

Petitioner has concealed this vital fact from this Hon''ble Court with unjust intention. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.

The Petitioner in his writ petition has submitted that he had filed various civil suits in the Civil Court at Bhiwani but has not disclosed to this

Hon''ble Court the outcome of the said suits and has concealed such vital information. It is submitted that the Petitioner has not disclosed whether

he was successful or otherwise in the said civil suits and

whether he has exhausted the avenues of appeals before approaching this Hon''ble Court by filing the present writ petition. It is submitted that the

said civil suits were dismissed by the respective civil courts and the Petitioner never challenged the said decisions. The writ petition is liable to be

dismissed on this ground.

That even otherwise the present writ petition raises number of disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into by means of a writ petition.

The Petitioner in filing the present petition seeks, amongst others, the release of number of dues, which he claims himself, to be entitled to. It is

respectfully submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to these dues as he has not submitted the relevant documents or has not followed the rule

and procedure which make him entitled to these dues. The background of this can best be understood by facts which the Petitioner has willfully

concealed. The Petitioner was working in IFFCO as Senior Field Representative. His duty entailed canvassing and promoting demand for the

goods of answering Respondents among the farmers in the area of his posting. In furthereance of his duty, he was required to educate farmers

about the modern methods of cultivation. He was posted at Mohindergarh in the year 1995-96. He was transferred from Mohindergarh to Ajnala

(Punjab) in January, 1996. He refused to join duty at the new place of posting. He submitted representation primarily requesting for his posting to

Bhiwani. The answering Respondent waited for him to join at Ajnala for a period of one month. The Petitioner did not do so. Consequently, the

Petitioner was charge sheeted on 19th February, 1996. The Petitioner did not participate in the enquiry. The enquiry report found the Petitioner

guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. He was also given an opportunity to represent against the same. Consequently, an order of removal

from service followed on 2nd June, 1998. The Petitioner preferred an appeal which was considered and rejected. It was during these disciplinary

proceedings that the Petitioner preferred CWP No. 8014 of 96. The same was dismissed by this Hon''ble Court on the ground that

the answering Respondent is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner now after considerable delay is raising these

disputed questions of fact in an effort to harass the answering Respondent. The petition besides raising disputed questions of fact, is also barred by

delay and laches and as such deserves to be dismissed.

That even otherwise the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as the Petitioner has not preferred any representation before invoking the present

writ of mandamus. The present writ petition is not maintainable.

The aforesaid writ petition came up for motion hearing on 4th September, 2001 and a Division Bench of this Court (S.S. Nijjar and J.S.

Khehar, JJ.). dismissed the petition by passing the following order:

Present: Petitioner in person.

P.K. Mutneja, Advocate, for Respondents.

S.S. Nijjar, J. (oral)

The Petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of

mandamus directing the Respondents to release the alleged dues of the Petitioner which are mentioned in the prayer clause as follows:

... F.L.T.E. since 6th June, 1994 to January, 1996. Fixed O.C.R. since April 1995 to January, 1996. Fixed Medical and Canteen Subsidy for

Janaury 1996, Ex gratia liveries and Awards for 1995-1996 (since April 1995 to 18th January, 1996), T.A. Bills from April 1995 to October,

1995 as per Rules with compensation minimum of Rs. 7 lacs and compensation for harassment for causing immense mental agony anguish minimum

of Rs. 3 lacs alongwith minimum cost of Rs. 25,000 including the costs of all aforesaid suits which were filed by the Petitioner for release of these

dues prior to this writ petition.

Earlier also, the Petitioner had filed CWP No. 8014 of 1996 which has been decided by a detailed judgment dated 2nd September, 1996 in that

case the Respondent had taken a preliminary objection to the effect that the writ petition is not maintainable against Indian Farmers Fertilizer

Cooperative Ltd. (IFFCO) as the same is not ""state"" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. After considering the relevant case law and

other judgment given by this Court as well as other High Courts, it has been held that I.F.F.C.O. does not fall within the definition of ""state"" under

Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As such it would not be amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. After the decision of the writ petition on

2nd September, 1996, the Petitioner instituted Civil Suit No. 274 of 1996 on 14th May, 1996 in the Court of Shri Narender Kumar Mittal, Addl.

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani. On 3rd September, 1997, it was held that the Civil Court at Bhiwani does not have territorial jurisdiction. It

was also held that the suit is maintainable either at Delhi or at Mohindergarh (Haryana). The plaint was ordered to be returned to the Plaintiff (the

Petitioner herein). Undeterred, the Petitioner instituted Civil Suit No. 37 of 1st April, 1998 again in the Court of Shri D.N. Bhardwaj, HCS, Civil

Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani. This suit was also decided on 15th September, 1999 with the observation that the Court at Bhiwani has no

territorial jurisdiction to try the case. So the plaint be returned to the Plaintiff as per rules. The Petitioner has also filed Civil Suit No. 209 of 1998

on 7th December, 1998. Both the suits i.e. Civil Suit No. 37 of 1st April, 1998 and the Civil Suit No. 209 of 1998 were decided by a common

order. No appeal was filed against any of the decisions of the Civil Courts. Instead of filing the civil suit in the court, which would have territorial

jurisdiction at Delhi or Mohindergarh, the Petitioner chose to file the present writ petition.

Notice of motion was issued in the writ petition on 7th February, 2001. On 31st October, 2000 the Petitioner appeared in person and stated that

he does not possess funds to engage a counsel. Therefore, one Pankaj Miglani, Advocate was appointed to represent the Petitioner from the State

Legal Services Authority. Since Mr. Miglani has shifted to Haridwar, Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate was appointed on behalf of the Petitioner.

Subsequently, on 3rd July, 2001, the Petitioner appeared in person. He stated that he does not want the assistance of the counsel who has been

assigned to appear on his behalf by this Court. In the earlier writ petition i.e. CWP No. 8014 of 1996 the Petitioner had also appeared in person.

In this petition, the Petitioner appearing in person vehemently argued that the Division Bench judgment in CWP No. 8014 of 1996 needs

reconsideration and made a prayer that the petition be referred to a larger Bench for decision.

We have considered the submissions made by the Petitioner. He has made a reference to some judgment in the case of Navneet Kaur v. Medical

College. He is unable to give particulars of that case. He is unable to give the date on which the case has been decided. He is unable to state as to

whether the judgment in CWP No. 8014 of 1996 has been considered in the aforesaid case. Therefore, we do not find any. merit in the request of

the Petitioner for referrring the matter to a larger Bench. It also deserves to be noticed that the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench dated 2nd

September, 1996 has not been challenged by the Petitioner by way of filing proceedings in the Supreme Court. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment

has become final. It is binding on us. Moreover, the judgment in the aforesaid writ petition i.e. CWP No. 8014 of 1996 is inter-parties. Therefore,

it is also binding on the Petitioner. Consequently, none of the submissions which have been urged by the Petitioner in the present petition can now

be permitted to be raised. The Civil Court in its order dated 3rd September, 1997 passed in Civil Suit No. 274 of 1996 had clearly indicated that

the suit of the Plaintiff would be maintainable, if filed, in the Courts at Delhi or at Mohindergarh. But the Petitioner chose to ignore the guidance

rendered by the civil courts. He did not even care to challenge the decision given by the civil courts by way of filing appeal/revision in the higher

court. Instead the Petitioner chose to file the present writ petition which is clearly not maintainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in

CWP No. 8014 of 1996. We are of the considered opinion that the Petitioner is deliberately abusing the process of the court.

In view of the above, the conduct of the Petitioner has to be viewed by the court with disapproval. Very rightly, in the interest of justice and in the

interest of the Petitioner, the Division Bench had offered the Petitioner the services of an Advocate. Callously, he spurned the officer and refused to

accept the services of an Advocate. Yet we find he is unable to assist the court in a meaningful manner.

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000.

Not satisfied, the Petitioner filed Civil Misc. Application No. 290 of 2001 in the aforesaid writ petition, under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, for review of the aforesaid order. The aforesaid review application was also dismissed on 28th September, 2001 with the

following order:

Present: Mr. Ram Snehi, Petitioner in person.

Heard Petitioner in person at length.

He has submitted that the writ petition is maintainable against the Respondents-IFFCO inspite of the fact that the decision has been rendered by

this Court in writ petition No. 8014 of 1996 holding that the Respondents-IFFCO is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction.

No ground has been made out for reviewing the order passed.

Dismissed.

Thereafter, the Petitioner filed CWP No. 13991 of 2002. This writ petition was dismissed on 5th September, 2002 by a Division Bench

consisting of Swantanter Kumar and S.S. Saron, JJ., with the following order:

Present: Petitioner in person.

Swantanter Kumar, J.

In this petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to release to

the Petitioner dues for duty period, T.A. Bills, fixed medical and canteen subsidy, exgratia, liveries and award for the years 1995 to 1996. The

Petitioner also prays that the gratuity, leave encashment etc. be also ordered to be paid. The Petitioner claims to be employee of the Respondents,

hence he has raised these claims and primarily argued that a writ lies against the Respondent-Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. in view of

the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ms. Ravneet Kaur v. The Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, 1997(4) S.L.R. 220.

It is not necessary for us to note the facts in greater detail. Suffice it to say that the Petitioner had filed a suit on 14th May, 1996 which was

dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed two more suits being civil suit No. 37 of 1998 and 209 of 1998.

Those cases were also dismissed. Then on 30th October, 2000, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being CWP No. 14569 of

2000, which was dismissed as not maintainable on 4th September, 2001. Review petition filed by the Petitioner against the said order of dismissal

was also dismissed. SLP was preferred by the Petitioner which was again dismissed,--vide order dated 26th November, 2001 passed by the

Hon''ble Apex Court. The order dated 26th November, 2001 reads as under:

Dismissal of the writ petition as per the impugned judgment will be without prejudice to the right of the Petitioner

in filing a civil suit for the reliefs before the apropriate court. With these observations this SLP is dispossed of.

In furtherance to the order of the Apex Court, the Petitioner could only file a civil suit. This writ petition is not maintainable and is hit by the

principles of res-judicata as well as on merits. Dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.

Still not satisfied, the Petitioner filed CWP No. 14448 of 2002. After noticing the entire facts pleaded above, the writ petition was dismissed on

24th October, 2002 by the same Division Bench consisting of Swatanter Kumar and S.S. Saron, JJ. The concluding part of the order passed by

the Division Bench is as under:

In view of the above order, we had no hesitation in dismissing this writ petition in limine, we direct that the Petitioner should not file such petitions

again and must exercise proper restraint while taking re-course to the remedy available in terms of the orders of Hon''ble Apex Court. No order as

to costs.

Inspite of the clear directions given to the Petitioner, he filed another CWP No. 4753 of 2003. This writ petition came up for motion hearing

on 28th March, 2003 before a Division Bench consisting of J.S. Khehar and M.M. Kumar, JJ. At the outset, the Petitioner stated that the case be

transferred to some other Bench. Consequently, the Division Bench passed the following order:

The Petitioner states that this case be transferred to other Bench. At the Petitioner''s request, the case is transferred to some other Bench.

The matter was listed for hearing on 6th May, 2003 when a Division Bench consisting of V.M. Jain and S.S. Saron JJ. passed the following

order:

At the request made by the Petitioner; who is present in person, let this petition be listed before any other Bench of which one of us (S.S. Saron,

J.) is not a member, after seeking appropriate orders from Hon''ble the Chief Justice.

Ultimately, the writ petition came up for hearing before Hon''ble the 1st Division Bench consisting of Binod Kumar Roy, Chief Justice and

V.M. Jain, J., on 19th March, 2004. The writ petition was dismissed with the following order:

- xx xx xx

Heard the Petitioner in person on the question of admission of this writ petition.

From the averments made in this writ petition and submission made by him, following facts transpired to us:

(i) Three civil suits filed by him at Bhiwani bearing Nos. 274 of 1996, 37 of 1998 and 209 of 1998 for these very dues were dismissed in the

absence of territorial jurisdiction.

(ii) He moved this Court earlier by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 14569 of 2000 for the same relief before this Court which, however, was

dismissed on 4th September, 2001 holding that the said writ petition was not maintainable. He filed a plea of review of the aforementioned order

dated 4th September, 2001, which was rejected by the Court,--vide its order dated 28th September, 2001.

(iii) Thereafter, he moved the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No. 190733 of 2001 against the order rejecting his review

application. The Hon''ble Supreme Court,--vide its order dated 26th November, 2001 disposed of this SLP by passing the following order:

Dismissal of the writ petition as per the impugned judgment will be without pr�judice to the right of the Petitioner in filing a civil suit for the reliefs

before the appropriate court, with these observations this SLP is disposed of."" (iv) He again moved the Hon''ble Supreme Court by filing an

application seeking modification of the aforementioned order, which was dismissed by order dated 22nd July, 2002.

(v) He again moved this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 14448 of 2002 for the same relief. The said writ petition was dismissed,--vide order

dated 26th October, 2002. Thereafter, one after another he filed three Review Applications which were all dismissed.

(vi) The instant writ petition is his 3rd attempt in this Court.

Through instant petition, the Z repeats his prayer. We think that after the matter was set at rest by the Hon''ble , Supreme Court with the grant

of liberty to him to file a civil suit for the reliefs before the appropriate Court, it does not give him any handle whatsoever to repeatedly move this

Court. We condemn his attempt and dismiss this writ petition summarily.

Even though the Division Bench had categorically condemned the behaviour of the Petitioner, he filed another Civil Writ Petition No. 9492 of

2003 which came up for hearing on 3rd November, 2003 before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of H.S. Bedi and Viney Mittal, JJ. The

writ petition was dismissed with the following order:

-Present:

Shri Ram Snehi, Petitioner in person

We have heard the Petitioner.

The Petitioner had come to this Court several times by way of writ petitions and on one of the occasion, he had approached the Hon''ble Supreme

Court. All his petitions were dismissed. He also filed a civil suit at Bhiwani, which too was dismissed. The relief claimed herein was claimed in all

the earlier proceedings as well. The Petitioner has submitted that as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of

Kerala and Another, , the dismissal at the stage of special leave by a non-speaking order would not constitute res-judicata.

At this stage the Petitioner submitted that this matter be put up before the 1st D.B. In view of the facts stated above, we find no justification in this

submission of the Petitioner or in the writ petition.

Dismissed.

Totally ignoring the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court and this Court, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition which came up for

motion hearing before this Bench on 2nd November, 2004. We noticed that the Petitioner had appended a letter addressed to Hon''ble the Chief

Justice dated 1st November, 2004 which reads as follows:

To

The Hon''ble Chief Justice,

Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh.

R/Sir.

That some Judges of this Hon''ble High Court are prejudice against me. So kindly order to registry to list my present writ i.e. filed on Today dated

1st November, 2004 Dairy No. 116529 Titled Ram Snehi v. IFFCO and Ors. before your Hon''ble Bench or before Hon''ble Mr. Justice G.S.

Singhvi''s Bench otherwise the Petitioner would starve.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/- ...,

(Ram Snehi)

Petitioner in Person

In view of the aforesaid note, we passed the following order on 2nd November, 2004:

In view of the note made, let the paper-book be placed before Hon''ble the Chief Justice for appropriate order.

The matter was put up before Hon''ble the Chief Justice on the Administrative side. On 3rd November, 2004, Hon''ble the Chief Justice was

pleased to pass the following order:

As per the roster, Similar prayer of the Petitioner was rejected by me Administratively against which he went to the Supreme Court which rejected

his prayer.

On 4th November, 2004 the matter was adjourned to 16th November, 2004. On that date, we passed the following order:

-Present:

Shri Ram Snehi, Petitioner in person.

Office is directed to tag the paper-books of CWP Nos. 14569 of 2000, 13991 of 2002, 14448 of 2002, 4753 of 2003 and 9492 of 2003,

alongwith the present petition.

Adjourned to 18th November, 2004.

On 18th November, 2004, the matter was put up before us alongwith entire record which has been alluded to above. At this stage, the

Petitioner again insisted that the matter be listed before the Bench headed by G.S. Singhvi, J. We informed the Petitioner that the matter had been

listed before us on the specific orders of Hob''ble the Chief Justice. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to give any such directions. The

Petitioner, thereafter, stated that notice of motion be issued only to enquire from the Respondents as to where would they like to defend the civil

suit if filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was, however, advised that the matters of jurisdiction have to be decided in accordance with the

provisions contained in the CPC and other relevant laws. Therefore, it was not necessary to issue notice of motion for this purpose only. The

Petitioner was also informed about the displeasure of the High Court expressed by different Benches. The Petitioner, thereafter, requested that the

order be passed and that the same be sent to him so that he can move the Supreme Court.

The conduct of the Petitioner is such that we would be justified in initiating the proceedings against him for Contempt of Court. We, however,

refrain from doing so in the larger interest of justice. We decline to give him any unnecessary publicity. In the interest of justice, we do not impose

any costs.

Dismissed.

Although the request made by the Petitioner for supply of a copy of this judgment at his home address is unusual, but in view of the peculiar

circumstances and in the interest of justice, we direct the office to send a copy of the judgment duly authenticated by the Special Secretary (D) of

the Bench to the Petitioner.