Delhi High Court
Chetan Prakash vs Registrar General, High Court Of ... on 16 January, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 252/2013
CHETAN PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil K. Aggarwal and Mr. Abhay
Kumar, Advs.
versus
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH
COURT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal with Ms. Nitisha
Kathuria, Adv. for Registrar General,
Delhi High Court
Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Addl. Standing
Counsel for R-2 and 3 with SHO
Naresh Kumar PS Dabri
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER
% 16.01.2013
The petitioner before this Court, applied on 18.12.2012 for certified
copy of the order dated 17.12.2012 passed by this Court in W.P(Crl.)
No.367/2004. The certified copy having not been supplied till 7.1.2013, the
petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:
A. issue writ of or in the nature of mandamus and/or any other
appropriate writs, orders, directions directing the respondent
Registrar General of this Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to
immediately supply/ issue a duly certified copy of the order
W.P.(C) 252/2013 page 1 of 4
dated 17.12.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this
Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.367 of 2004 titled as
'Chetan Prakash vs. Union of India' and to facilitate and
render all possible help and assistance to the petitioner in
filing the appeal before the higher judicial authority; and
B. issue writ of or in the nature of mandamus and/or any other
appropriate writs, orders, directions investigation and
holding a departmental and vigilance inquiry by a Retd.
Hon'bel Judge of this Hon'ble Court in deliberate delay
caused by the respondent no.1 in supply of certified copy of
the aforesaid order (Annexure P-4) and in the incidence of
unsigned copy found in the possession of SHO, PS, Dabri,
respondent no.3; and to take disciplinary action against the
officials involved in the same; and
C. to pass and order directing the Central Bureau of
Investigation, respondent no.4 to investigate the matter and
file a criminal complaint/FIR before the competent
Magistrate against the officials from Registry of High Court
and Delhi Police including the respondent no.1 to 3 involved
in the incidence reported herein.
2. This is also the case of the petitioner that an unsigned and uncertified
copy of the order dated 7.12.2012 has been obtained by him from Police
Station Dabri.
W.P.(C) 252/2013 page 2 of 4
3. Admittedly, the certified copy has since been supplied to the
petitioner.
4. The petitioner claims to have submitted the application for supply of
certified copy on 18.12.2012. This Court was closed for winter holidays
from 24.12.2012 to 1.1.2013 and, therefore, only 5 working days were
available to the Registry before the winter holidays. Thus, the Registry took
about 12 working days to provide certified copy of the order dated
17.12.2012. Though, the effort of the Registry has to be to supply the
certified copy at the earliest possible, the time taken in this case, in our view,
cannot be said to be unreasonable so as to warrant filing of a writ petition
making the prayers as extracted above. In our view, the non-availability of
certified copy of the order dated 17.12.2012 could not have prevented the
petitioner from filing the writ petition because all the orders and judgments
of this Court are available on the internet and can be downloaded from there.
The petitioner could also have inspected the judicial record and noted the
order dated 17.12.2012. In any case, according to the petitioner, typed copy
of the order had been made available to him by Police Station Dabri. He
could have filed the unsigned copy and sought exemption from filing the
certified copy along with the writ petition.
In case the petitioner was in urgent need of the certified copy of the
order dated 17.12.2012, he could have met the concerned Registrar or even
the Registrar General of this Court to make a request to provide certified
copy to him on overriding priority basis. This is not the case of the petitioner
that any such attempt was made by him. Instead of adopting such a course of
action, the petitioner has chosen to make wild allegations against the
W.P.(C) 252/2013 page 3 of 4
Registry of this Court without there being even prima facie material
available to justify such allegations. In Para 12 of the petition, the petitioner
has alleged nexus between the police and the Registry of this Court and
sought action against the Registrar General of this Court imputing corrupt
and criminal acts endangering the life of the petitioner and his family
members to him. Making such scandalous and per se defamatory
allegations, without a shred of material which would justify such
imputations is highly irresponsible action which cannot be justified on any
account. In our opinion, the present petition is nothing but a gross abuse of
the process of this Court. We accordingly dismiss the writ petition but we
refrain from imposing any cost on the petitioner.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.K. JAIN, J
JANUARY 16, 2013/rd
W.P.(C) 252/2013 page 4 of 4
