Bhuwanchandra Bartariya vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 25547 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182604
 
Court No. - 6
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32101 of 2023
 
Petitioner :- Bhuwanchandra Bartariya
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt,Byas Kumar Prasad
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Heard Mr. Byas Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :-

"i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Qua warranto calling upon respondents no. 5 to 8 to show cause as to under what authority they are holding the post of member of village Bhojpur, Block Kamlaganj, District Farrukhabad.

ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the state respondent to remove the respondent no. 5 to 8 from the post of member of village Bhojpur, Block Kamlaganj, District Farrukhabad and further not to perform any duties and exercise any poser as member of village Bhojpur, Block Kamlaganj, District Farrukhabad.

iii) Issue a writ order or direction restraining the respondent no. 5 to 8 from usurping the office of member of village Bhojpur, Block Kamlaganj, District Farrukhabad."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an elected Pradhan of Village Bhojpur, Block Kamlaganj, District Farrukhabad. It appears that the election for the said Gram Panchayat modified on the basis of electoral list published in the year 2021. In the Village Bhojpur, Block Kamlaganj, District Farrukhabad in the ward nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 15 uncontested election result was declared and respondent nos. 5 to 8 alongwith other candidates were elected as members of the respective wards. As respondent nos. 5 to 8 were not qualified to contest the election, a representation has been given by the petitioner being Gram Pradhan before the respondent authority for their removal as elected members but nothing has been done till date, hence, the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that some externment punishment order was passed against respondent no. 5, namely Man Singh and respondent no. 8, Sarvesh Singh, therefore, they were ineligible to contest the election. He further submits that respondent no. 6 also did not meet the requisite requirement of age at the time of nomination of papers as she was only 19 years old at that point of time. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that respondent no. 7 was also out of zone of consideration as she was only 17 years of age at the time of election. Thus the respondent nos. 5 to 8 are ineligible for contesting election on the posts of members of concerned Gram Panchayat, hence, the present writ calling upon respondent nos. 5 to 8 to show cause as to under what authority they are holding the posts of members of Village Bhojpur, Block Kamlaganj, District Farrukhabad.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that proper procedure to challenge the election is provided under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. In case, the petitioner had any objection to the electoral list, same could have been challenged prior to declaration of the result of election. He also submits that as the writ petition has been filed at the behest of Pradhan, it should have been filed by a panel lawyer. It is further contended that the petitioner has no locus to file such petition, therefore, this petition is not maintainable.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

Ample opportunity was provided to counsel for the petitioner to address the Court on the aforesaid issue, however, he is not in a position to answer the queries of the Court. This Court finds that it is a misconceived and totally frivolous petition.

In regard to frivolous litigation, the Supreme Court has taken a judicial note that huge number of frivolous petitions are choking roaster of the courts. The Supreme Court put a note of caution that the High Courts should discourage such type of litigation and should impose heavy costs. The Supreme Court has sounded a word of caution in its judgment in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 470, in the following terms:

"191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long-drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings) worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his. Should a litigant not be compensated for what he has lost for no fault? The suggestion to the legislature is that a litigant who has succeeded must be compensated by the one who has lost. The suggestion to the legislature is to formulate a mechanism that anyone who initiates and continues a litigation senselessly pays for the same. It is suggested that the legislature should consider the introduction of a "Code of Compulsory Costs".

In the case of Phool Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 112 the Supreme Court has held that the High Courts should curb the tendency of filing frivolous writ petitions by imposing heavy costs on the petitioners and the advocates too. Relevant part of the judgment in Phool Chandra (supra) is extracted below:

"12. All these are aberrations in the functioning of the Apex Court of any country. Of late, there has been an increase in the trend of litigants rushing to the courts, including this Court, for all kinds of trivial and silly matters which results in wastage of public money and time. A closer scrutiny of all such matters would disclose that there was not even a remote justification for filing the case. It is a pity that the time of the court which is becoming acutely precious because of the piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such matters. There is an urgent need to put a check on such frivolous litigation. Perhaps many such cases can be avoided if the learned counsel who are officers of the court and who are expected to assist the court tender proper advice to their clients. The Bar has to realise that the great burden upon the Bench of dispensing justice imposes a simultaneous duty upon them to share this burden and it is their duty to see that the burden should not needlessly be made unbearable. The Judges of this Nation are struggling bravely against the odds to tackle the problem of dispensing quick justice. But, without the cooperation of the gentlemen of the Bar, nothing can be done.

13. It is high time that the courts should come down heavily upon such frivolous litigation and unless we ensure that the wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigation. In order to curb such kind of litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive which can be ensured by imposing exemplary costs upon the parties as well as on the learned counsel who act in an irresponsible manner. {Vide Varinderpal Singh v. M.R. Sharma, 1986 Supp SCC 719, Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 1, and Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Khazani, (2012) 8 SCC 781 : AIR 2012 SC 2881.}"(emphasis supplied)

In view of the above, as counsel for the petitioner namely Byas Kumar Prasad (Adv. Roll No. A/B0045/2021, Mobile No. 7785876828) wasted precious time of this Court, the writ petition is dismissed with caution to counsel for the petitioner to be careful in future.

Order Date :- 20.9.2023/Arti