23 Jan 2024 3:48 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Monday (January 22) dismissed a Special Leave Petition, filed by a person claiming to be a "special constitutional functionary", calling it a complete baseless and frivolous petition.
Concurring with the findings of the High Court, the Bench comprising of Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, noted that the petitioner filed the petition on baseless grounds and approached the Court despite having an alternative remedy of filing a review petition before the appropriate forum.
Briefly put, the petitioner claimed himself to be a 'special constitutional functionary' and demanded privilege in the litigation in light of his position. One eviction suit is pending against the petitioner before the trial court. To obstruct the proceedings before the trial court, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, which came to be dismissed by a Single Judge.
Challenging the order of the Single Judge, the petitioner preferred a letters patent appeal (LPA) before the Division Bench of the High Court. The same also led to the dismissal by the Division Bench of the High Court with a following note:
“This Court has further no doubt that the underlying writ petition has been filed only to ensure that the District Court Judges who deal with the eviction petitions do not expeditiously decide the same. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court directs the learned Senior Civil Judge to decide the eviction petition filed against the appellant within three months from receipt of the order, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any special status as claimed by the appellant.”
Pursuant to such dismissal, the Petitioner preferred a SLP before the Supreme Court.
When the matter was called for hearing today, the court at the outset, declined to entertain such frivolous petition.
“We are putting to you notice that this is a fit case to impose cost on you”, the court orally observed.
Thereafter, the court expressed its anguish and displeasure on the petitioner's status of being a special constitutional functionary.
“How can you claim to be a special constitutional functionary? Where do you get this in the Constitution? Because you write to a President's office that you are a special constitutional functionary and that is cut-pasted in the reply, therefore you say you're a special constitutional functionary.”
“Do you want to withdraw the petition or we impose cost on you?”, the court provided an option to the petitioner, but the petitioner continued submitting his arguments.
The Court then pronounced an order dismissing the SLP.
“.. surprisingly the petitioner has described himself as a special constitutional functionary and he maintains that he has this status," the Court noted in the order and dismissed the petition as frivolous.