[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Narayan Das vs Union Of India on 18 August, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.16 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(s). 43601/2024
in Writ Petition (Civil) D. No. 33064/2024
NARAYAN DAS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No.216969/2024 - APPEAL AGAINST REGISTRARS ORDER XV RULE
5
IA No.295993/2024 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No.268267/2024 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON)
Date: 18-08-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Narayan Das, In-person
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the petitioner-in-person the Court made the
following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. The petitioner who appears in person and evidently an
advocate, as appears from the dress worn by him, has filed
the present Application1 in a Writ Petition2 filed by him
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, with the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
following prayers:
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.08.28
13:51:37 IST
Reason:
1 M.A. Diary No.43601/2024
2 W.P.(C)Diary No.33064/2024
1
“a) To allow the W.P. to be received and registered
by the Hon’ble Registrar, by setting aside the
order passed by him.
b) And to post the case to a Bench of a five judges
on the basis of the S.C Rules 2013 to adjudicate
the case on merits,
c) And pass any reasoned order deem fit and proper by
the Hon’ble Court basing on merits.”
3. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order
dated 13th August, 2024 passed by the Registrar (J-A) whereby
Writ Petition (C) Diary No.33064/2024 filed by him has not
been entertained. The detailed reasons have been assigned in
the impugned order.
4. In fact, the petitioner had earlier filed a Writ
Petition3 (Civil) No.128 of 2022 seeking following reliefs:
1) Call for all the Original Records of the case from
the Respondent No-3, 4 and 5 and Declare the Inquiry
of 2011, its Report and the Inquiry papers of 2008,
and any other papers attached with the Report as
illegal and quash them,AND consequently declare the Penalty order of
Transfer as illegal and void in the eyes of law,
being violative of the Article 14, 16 and 21 of the
constitution,AND consequently Reinstate the petitioner from the
very day of his withdrawal allowing ail accrual
3 W.P.(C) No.128 of 20222
benefits as per rules,AND Declare all other subsequent actions on false
charges/orders passed/penalty issued/ Inquiry report
etc. Made- as enumerated under para-21 as invalid to
establish the rule of law.
2) Direct the Disciplinary Authority to take serious
disciplinary actions against the Real Violators who
have forced the MOD, 0. F. Board and the Management
of OFBOL, RFI and now the Ministry of law and Justice
to run behind the Petitioner for no fault of him, and
charge Costs on them,
3) Grant due Compensation as to the loss incurred in
the litigation and adjudication of the case since
2014 to till the day of the judgement from the
Respondents,AND GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF OR PASS ANY OTHER
ORDER/ORDERS AS THE HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND
PROPER IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE.”
5. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this
Court on 29th April, 2022 finding no reason to entertain the
petition. Thereafter, he filed a Review Petition
(Civil)No.750 of 2022 which had also been dismissed vide
order dated 26th July, 2022. Still, not satisfied, he filed
a Curative Petition No.151 of 2022. The same was also
3
dismissed by this Court on 15th February, 2023. In fact, on
earlier occasion, cost of ₹25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five
thousand only) was imposed on the petitioner which according
to him has now been deposited.
6. The petitioner re-agitated the matter by filing Writ
Petition4 seeking same reliefs:
1) Call for all the Original Records of the case from
the Respondent No-3, 4 and 5 and Declare the Inquiry
of 2011, its Report and the Inquiry papers of 2008,
and any other papers attached with the Report as
illegal and quash them,AND consequently declare the Penalty order of
Transfer as illegal and void in the eyes of law,
being violative of the Article 14, 16 and 21 of the
constitution,AND consequently Reinstate the petitioner from the
very day of his withdrawal allowing ail accrual
benefits as per rules,AND Declare all other subsequent actions on false
charges/orders passed/penalty issued/ Inquiry report
etc. Made- as enumerated under para-21 as invalid to
establish the rule of law.
2) Direct the Disciplinary Authority to take serious
disciplinary actions against the Real Violators who
have forced the MOD, 0. F. Board and the Management
of OFBOL, RFI and now the Ministry of law and Justice
to run behind the Petitioner for no fault of him, and4 W.P.(C)Diary No.33064/2024
4
charge Costs on them,
3) Grant due Compensation as to the loss incurred in
the litigation and adjudication of the case since
2014 to till the day of the judgement from the
Respondents,AND GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF OR PASS ANY OTHER
ORDER/ORDERS AS THE HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND
PROPER IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE.”
7. Registrar (J-A) declined to receive and register the
petition recording that the same did not disclose any
reasonable cause under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court
Rules, 2013 which is reproduced hereunder :
“5. The Registrar may refuse to receive a petition
on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause
or is frivolous or contains scandalous matter but the
petitioner may within fifteen days of the making of
such order, appeal by way of motion, from such
refusal to the Court.”
8. At the time of hearing of the present application,
the petitioner, inter alia, argued that the earlier exercise
by this Court was monopolistic, as he was not heard. Without
even notice, the Writ Petition, the Review Petition and the
Curative Petition were dismissed. This resulted in failure
of justice.
5
9. We do not subscribe to that view. The earlier writ
petition was dismissed after hearing the petitioner. As no
merits was there in review and curative petition, no hearing
was required to be afforded. Prayer made in the second Writ
Petition was identical.
10. The present application (M.A. Diary No.43601/2024) is
accordingly dismissed.
11. As the applicant/petitioner has not mended his way
despite earlier imposition of costs, ₹50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) is imposed as cost on the applicant/petitioner
which shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-
Record Association within a period of four weeks from today.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (AKSHAY KUMAR BHORIA)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
6
[ad_2]
Source link