The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta on Thursday directed the state to take steps to recover the Rs 25 lakh cost that had been imposed by the court on Suraj India Trust for filing 64 frivolous petitions both before various high courts and the Apex Court. That cost had been imposed by the then bench of Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justices DY Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul in writ petition no. 880 of 2016 for wasting the judicial time of the apex court.

The Trust (or its chairman Rajiv Dhaiya) has not deposited the amount.

During hearing, the Union of India apprised the court that disciplinary proceedings have been instituted against the petitioner in person. The bench then directed the state to initiate fresh steps in recovering the costs from the petitioner, that could be gathered from the arrears of land revenue. 

In September 2020, the apex court issued notice to the original petitioner, directing him to pay the cost of Rs 25 lakh pursuant to the order of May 1, 2017, passed by the then bench led by CJI Khehar. The court had discouraged the manner and indiscretion adopted by so many individuals while filing PILs before the Supreme Court, “just like the petitioner in person, Rajiv Dhaiya has adopted in the present case.” He was further ordered to deposit such amount with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Trust, within 3 months from date of order. In case if he fails to pay the cost such shall be recovered from the personal assets of the petitioner.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, vide order of 12.02.2021 noticed the fact that the application for modification filed by petitioner for waiving the cost awarded to petitioner in person, was outright rejected on 5.1.2017.  Furthermore, details of immovable and movable assets were sought by the Apex Court  from the petitioner, but he failed to furnish that. Seeing the conduct of the petitioner, the apex court issued a bailable warrant against Dhaiya for the sum of Rs 25,000 with one surety of like amount. 

The order dated 12.04.2021 indicate that Senior Advocate Manish Singhvi, counsel for the state, appeared and the court asked him to obtain instructions as to nature of employment of petitioner in person and whether all activities being carried out by the petitioner are permissible or not, while he is drawing a salary from the state since the petitioner is in a government job.

Genesis of writ petition no. (880 of 2016)

Read Also: Delhi government sets up website to supply oxygen to those in home isolation

The following petition came up before the 3 judges bench (supra) in the month of April 2017. The court had a view that such petition does not disclose any cause in interest of public nature, and as such the court granted him liberty to not file such PILs which is not in interest of public cause. Ample opportunity was given to the Petitioner to make voluntary statement regarding not filing such petitions. Nevertheless, the suggestion put forward by the court was declined by him. Several representations were sent by the petitioner to the then President of India, making inappropriate remarks against SC judges, the Rajasthan High court and other court judges as well. Such letter contained allegation about the registry of the Supreme Court also.

Source: ILNS

The Kerala High Court on Friday directed the Commissioner for Land Revenue to consider and pass appropriate orders on the revision petition filed by the petitioner under sub-rule (8) of Rule 21 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules within two months.

The petitioner, Vijayakumar K., who is in possession and enjoyment of 3.92 acres of land of Elappara Village. He submitted an application dated 12.08.2015, for assignment of land before the Land Assignment Officer, Peermade. The application was rejected by order dated 21.10.2019 of the Special Tahsildar, Peermade. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, under sub-rule (1) of Rule 21, which also ended in dismissal by order dated 08.01.2021. Feeling aggrieved , the petitioner moved revision before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, invoking the provisions under sub-rule (8) of Rule 21 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, which is now pending under consideration.

The Petitioner has approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Commissioner for Land Revenue to consider and pass orders on revision petition dated 15.02.2021 filed under sub-rule (8) of Rule 21 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules within a time limit to be fixed by the High Court, with a further direction to keep in abeyance the eviction proceedings.

A Single Bench of Justice Anil K.Narendran while considering the matter , held that it is for the revisional authority to take an appropriate decision on that revision, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Seeking stay of further proceedings pursuant to the order impugned in the revision petition, the petitioner has to file an application before the revisional authority.

In such circumstances, the Court Disposed the Petition with the direction to the Commissioner for Land Revenue to consider and pass appropriate orders on revision petition filed by the petitioner under sub-rule (8) of Rule 21 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

The Court while concluding the Judgement , cited the Judgement of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309]in which the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law.

Moreover, in Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law.

In light of those Judgements the Court further directs the Commissioner for Land Revenue to take an appropriate decision in the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point.

Read Also: Written Like A True Judge