Dismissed

Shankar Lal Sharma v. M/S K E C Inter Ltd. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2013SAW/517/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Intra-court appeal against a writ order dismissed for lack of substantiality. Appellant, appearing in person, filed baseless allegations scandalizing the Court and judges. The Court found the appeal to be a gross misuse of process and dismissed it without imposing costs due to the appellant appearing personally as a workman.

What did the court decide?

Intra-court appeal dismissed. No costs imposed on appellant despite admonishment.

Shankar Lal Sharma Vs M/S K E C Inter Ltd. and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAI PUR BENCH, JAI PUR

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.517/ 2013

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HON ' BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. AMI TAVA ROY HON ' BLE MR. JUSTI CE VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA

¶7

Mr.Shankar Lal Sharma, appellant in person. Mr.Rupin Kala, for the respondents.

¶8

BY THE COURT : (Per Hon'ble Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J.)

¶9

The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 15^th of April, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ application preferred by the appellant-petitioner (for short 'the appellant'); impleading the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur; Labour Court, Jaipur; Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur through its Registrar General; and the Hon'ble Supreme Court through its Registrar General. 2. Briefly, the essential material facts necessary for adjudication of the intra-court appeal are that the appellant approached this Court through a writ application with a prayer to entrust the matter for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'the CBI'). A bare perusal of the prayer clause would further reveal that the appellant has alleged a conspiracy by the respondent No.1 – K.E.C. International Ltd., Jaipur in appointing their representative to defend

¶10

¶11

the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Jaipur, initiated by the appellant. The appellant has also imputed malice against the Judicial Officers with reference to the awards passed. Alleging disappearance of certain documents from the record of the cases of the appellant, pending before the Industrial Tribnal/ Labour Court, at the hands of the Judicial Officers or the Investigating Agency, are the issues, which according to the appellant, needs to be investigated by the CBI. The appellant is also aggrieved of the Negative Report (FR), submitted by the Investigating Agency on his complaint. The appellant has also raised grievance for not declaring Hindi as official language of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for the purpose of petitions which are filed by the workmen. In the memo of the appeal, the appellant detailing out the names of the Judges of this court, has alleged their failure to perform their duties in ensuring rule of law and has even attributed motives to the Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶12

While detailing out the facts in the memo of the appeal, the appellant has dealt with multiple issues and has referred to the events with effect from 17^th September, 1977; detailing out his alleged grievances. The appellant has also referred to initiation of proceedings before the Labour Court in view of the reference made by the appropriate Government on 2^nd August, 1982 and subsequent writ applications filed against the award dated 1^st August, 1985. The appellant also referred to the award dated 6^th July, 1999 in case number I.T. 14/ 1991 and the writ proceedings initiated by the Management i.e. M/ s. K.E.C. International Ltd., Jaipur.

¶13

The appellant is a person, who is under a firm belief that he has been victimized and let down by the Management of M/ s. K.E.C.

¶14

¶15

International Ltd., and the proceedings initiated before the Judicial Forums have further added to his pain and sufferings, resulting into mental agony and physical damage to his body. While addressing the Court, he is full of verbosity and inchoate assertions as he would shoot off at a tangent in the midst of the arguments; after making submissions on other points, would again return to the point from where he took off.

¶16

The appellant has generated a voluminous record by filing repeated pleadings and applications absolutely irrelevant to the issue raised. So also while addressing the Court, he dealt with multiplicity to events, possibly in the hope and belief that in the mass of the material he presents to the Court, there may be something that may help his case. The appellant asserted that he has a right to get the matter investigated by the CBI in order to find out the corrupt officers in the system including the judiciary. The appellant has also pleaded that the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, in collusion with the representative of the Management for monetary benefits, accorded permission for his termination and such a Presiding Officer is a blot in the judiciary.

¶17

The appellant referring to an incident of 29^th February, 2012, has also pointed out about his attempt to commit the suicide in the court room for having consumed Aldrin at 10.40 a.m., but no attempt was made to prevent him from doing so; and has attributed motive to the then Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. Raising the grievance for elevation of the members of the Bar to the Bench as Judges of the same High Court, where they practiced as lawyers, facilitates their near relatives to obtain favourable orders, is yet another issue raised, in addition to the need for repeal of the provisions of Review. It is for

¶18

¶19

these reasons he has impleaded the Supreme Court, Rajasthan High Court, Union of India and State of Rajasthan, in addition to the Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court and M/ s. K.E.C. International Ltd., as respondents to the proceedings.

¶20

We have heard the appellant in person and Mr. Rupin Kala, the learned counsel, for the respondents and with their assistance carefully perused the material available on record as well as the impugned order dated 15^th of April, 2013.

¶21

A bare perusal of the memo of the appeal would reveal that the appellant has made absolutely baseless allegations without any factual foundation while imputing allegations, which are creations of imaginations of the appellant, keeping in view the very nature of the allegations which are based on surmises and conjectures. In case at hand, from a perusal of the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellant and the language used, makes it apparent the face of record that the applicant has made aspersions on each and every Judge of this Court, who in the discharge of his judicial functions dealt with the case of the appellant in a manner not liked by the appellant at one stage or the other, as we could note from the order sheets.

¶22

The allegations levelled by the appellant do have the tendency of scandalizing the Court. The appellant appears to be attempting even to browbeat the learned judicial officers dealing with his case(s) in the Tribunal/ Labour court as well as the Judge of this High Court and thus causing interference in the administration of justice. From the pleadings of the memo of appeal it is an obvious motivated action on his part to intimidate the Court. We, however at this stage refrain from taking any action, but will like to caution the appellant to desist from use of intemperate language and refrain from making allegations,

¶23

¶24

which may scandalize the court. It hardly needs to be reiterated that no system of justice can tolerate such unbridled licence to a litigant, to permit him the liberty of scandalising the court by hurling unwarranted, uncalled for, unjustified and baseless allegations on the integrity, ability, impartiality or fairness of a Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions, for it amounts to interference with the due course of administration of justice. No litigant, even if appearing in person, can be permitted to overstep the limits of fair, bona fide and reasonable criticism of the judgment; and bring the courts generally into disrepute or attribute motives to the Judges rendering the judgment, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Catena of judgments.

¶25

The judgments referred to and relied upon by the appellant are with reference to the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whereas in the writ application as well as in the intra-court appeal, the relief sought is for investigation of the matter by the CBI. Therefore, the judgments referred to and relied upon by the appellant, have no relevance with the controversy raised in the instant case.

¶26

Having considered the totality of the facts, circumstances and material available on record, we are not persuaded to take a different view than the one arrived at by the learned Single Judge. The intracourt appeal is a gross misuse of process of the Court and the appellant deserves to be imposed with exemplary cost but keeping in view the fact that he has been appearing in person and a workman, we refrain from imposing any cost. However, we would like to caution him from raising baseless aspersions on the Judicial Offices and Judges as well as on the Judicial System as a whole, without there being any

¶27

¶28

factual foundation. The intra-court appeal is without any substance and merits rejection at the very threshold. Ordered accordingly.

¶29

In the result, the intra-court appeal is dismissed.

¶30

( VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA) , J. ( AMI TAVA ROY) , CJ.

¶31

Sun il/ P.A.

¶32

All cor r ect ion s m ad e in t h e j u d g m en t / or d er h av e been in cor por at ed in t h e j u dgm en t / or der bein g em ailed.

¶33

( Su n il Solan k i) P.A.

Shankar Lal Sharma v. M/S K E C Inter Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Lal Sharma v. M/S K E C Inter Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Pal Singh Vs J D a and Ors.

Raj State Industrial Dev and Invest Vs Vineet Kumar Gupta and Another

Narendra Kumar Saini Vs University of Raj and Ors.

Hans Raj Vs Gopi Vallabh

Mahima Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

State of Raj and Ors. Vs Babulal