M.D. Panchbhai vs S.J. Fulzele And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 391 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.K. Batta, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court for institution of commission to assess loss to the Trust of Dikshabhoomi and to him; to appoint him as a receiver of the same and to provide police and other protection. We have heard the petitioner in person at length and also learned Advocate Shri C.S. Kaptan for respondent No. 1 and learned Advocate Shri A.M. Gordey for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The petitioner has submitted before us that no reply has been filed to the petition and since the allegations relating to misappropriation of rupees twenty lacs are untraversed, Dikshabhoomi be placed in his hands.

3. Learned Advocate Shri C.S. Kaptan, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, has urged before us that in respect of the same subject matter, Civil Suit No. 1 of 1975 has been filed by the petitioner before the District Judge, Nagpur under section 50 of Bombay Public Trusts Act for framing a scheme for removal of trustees which is pending; neither the trust nor all trustees have been made parties and even otherwise in the background of the litigation, there is no merit in this petition. Learned Advocate Shri Gordey supported the submissions made by learned Advocate Shri Kaptan.

4. The petitioner, in reply, submitted before us that justice be given, criminal activists be punished and he made allegations against Ramkrishna Suryabhan Gawai for misappropriation of rupees one thousand crores belonging to Dikshabhoomi.

5. We have gone through the matter and taken and note of the proceedings filed by the petitioner from time to time. The petitioner had filed Civil Suit No. 801/1970 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur for declaration that the use of Dikshabhoomi land should not be used for political or other purposes without permission of the State Government. This suit was finally disposed of vide order dated 27th August, 1977 in Civil Appeal No. 5499 of 1985 and a statement was made before the Apex Court that Dikshabhoomi shall not be used for political purpose. The petitioner who is added as plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 1/1975 before the District Judge seeks relief that the defendants therein had committed breach of trust, misappropriated amount and committed breach of legal provisions and as such they should be disqualified to continue as trustees as also they may be removed from the post of office bearers as well as membership of the trust and new trustees be appointed in their place. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 125/1982 for appointment of receiver of trust which was rejected on 6-12-1982. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1959/1986 for appointment of receiver in relation to Dikshabhoomi, but this Court had declined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner filed S.L.P. 11093/1987, but the Apex Court by order dated 24-9-1987 also declined to interfere and asked the trial Court to decide the application for appointment of the receiver. The petitioner had filed A.O. 36/1989 against order dated 29-4-1989 of A.D.J., Nagpur refusing to appoint him as receiver. The same was dismissed by order dated 19-9-1989 by this Court.

6. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 756 of 1989 in respect of the same subject matter which was dismissed vide order dated 11th August, 1989. The petitioner then filed Review Application 99/1989 in Writ Petition No. 756 of 1989 which was dismissed vide order dated 10th December, 1992. The petitioner filed also Writ Petition Nos. 2415 of 1990 and 2445 of 1990 which were dismissed on 10-12-1992.

7. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 2514 of 1990 on the same subject matter which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 10th December, 1992. The petitioner had filed another writ petition on the same subject matter namely Writ Petition No. 392 of 1992 which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10th December, 1992.

8. The petitioner had filed yet another Writ Petition No. 868 of 1992 on the same subject matter seeking his appointment as receiver, to investigate into misappropriation and appointment of commission which was again dismissed by this Court on 10th December, 1992. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 2602 of 1995 which was also dismissed vide order dated 9-7-1998. The petitioner filed L.P.A. No. 246 of 1998 which was dismissed on 21-6-1989 wherein it was observed that this is vexatious litigation undertaken by the party-in-person; that he is repeatedly filing litigations in this Court and that he sought directions to give him two thousand crores and ten thousand acres of vacant land around Dikshabhoomi. It was further noticed in this L.P.A. that petitioner had filed half-a-dozen civil applications which were dismissed by this Court. It is further observed in the said order of L.P.A. that further half-a-dozen Civil Applications have been filed which were also rejected. In this L.P.A., it was also noticed that Civil Writ Petition No. 2602 of 1995 had also been dismissed. The L.P.A. was dismissed with observation that the same was frivolous. The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application No. 251/1999 in L.P.A. No. 246 of 1998 which was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 31st August, 1999. Dozens of Civil Applications filed by the petitioner in the proceedings have been dismissed.

9. The petitioner had also filed Writ Petition No. 1077 of 2000 which was also dismissed. The petitioner had filed yet another writ petition under Stamp No. 6258 of 1998 in which declaration was sought that Dhamma is itself religion and Dhamma is not part of Hinduism. Obviously no such writ petition can be entertained.

10. In this background of litigation as also the fact that Civil Suit No. 1/1975 is still pending before the appropriate authority, we do not find any merit or substance whatsoever in the allegations made in this petition which are not only prima facie baseless but are not supported by any material on record. In our opinion, the petition is frivolous in nature and calls for dismissal.

11. The petitioner has been filing frivolous litigations one after the other and has been simply wasting the time of this Court and as such we order that the petition be dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with further directions that no writ petition or other proceedings filed by the petitioner shall be entertained by this Court unless the petitioner first pays the costs of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) awarded in this petition and the said petition/proceedings are certified by an Advocate practising in this Court that the said writ petition or proceedings are appropriate, merit consideration and fit to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner shall deposit the costs with the Additional Registrar of this Court. With these observations the writ petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged.