IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Misc. Petition No. 10058 of 2008 In

Writ Petition (Crl.)              D. No. 33998 of 2007

Harendra Jha .. Petitioner

Versus

Ministry of Law through  Secretary to Government of India .. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. The petitioner in person has filed this petition.

2. We  have  carefully  perused  the  petition  and  heard  the

petitioner-in-person  at  length,  but  we  found  it  difficult  to

comprehend the real grievance of the petitioner against which

he has approached this court.

3. It  appears from the cause  title  of  the petition that the

petitioner  perhaps  is  aggrieved  by  the  Order  dated  8.3.08

passed in Writ Petition No………. Diary No. 33998 of 2007 by

the  Registrar  (Judicial)  of  this  Court.   The  order  dated

8.3.2008 reads as follows:

“Mr.  Harendra  Jha,  petitioner-in-person,  has on 22.11.07 filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. bearing D. No. 33998/07 seeking the following reliefs:

i) That the case may be put up before the nine Judges Bench for final hearing.

ii) That Curative petition may be sustained with a certificate from petitioner.

iii) That the Judges who decided & delivered the earlier Judgment ought not be associated with again in the proceeding to reconsider the same judgment/decision.

iv) That  the  Curative  Petition  ought  not  to  be circulated to the Bench & may admitted after hearing in open court.

v) That in the event of petition found vexatious or without  merit  an  exemplary  cost  may  be imposed  on  petitioner,  however  on  the contrary if  the earlier  order found otherwise, i.e.  proved  vexatious/harassing/biased  or  in contravention to the doctrine of natural justice & equity after deliberation & reconsideration, the  petitioner  may  be  compensated  by  the Court (?)

2

vi) That  if  the  allegation  of  business  brought before your Lordship is proved/found justified, and  may  passed  order  as  prior  to  1858  in British regime in favour of public importance.

vii) That  stay the  further  proceeding  in  Curative Petition  diary  No.  11467  of  2007  pending disposal  of  this  writ  petition  and  thereafter direct  to  respondents  to  take  application  on the certificate of the petitioner.

viii) That  petitioner  is  a  senior  citizen  &  retired primary  school  teacher  with  elementary knowledge  of  English  language  having  no command over it & as such there is possibility of  hurting  the  feelings  of  your  Lordship  for which  the  petitioner  begs  to  be pardoned/excused.

ix) That  your  Lordship  pass  such  an  order  or orders as deemed just & proper.”

It  is  seen  from  the  averments  made  in  the petition  that  he  has  filed  the  Writ  Petition challenging the letter dated 18.04.07 issued by the Registry intimating him the defects noticed in the Curative  Petition  filed  by  him  as  Diary  No. 11467/07 in Review Petition (Crl.)  No.  909/05 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 266/05.  It is also seen from the records that since the petitioner-in-person did not  cure  the  mandatory  defects  noticed  in  the Curative  Petition, the same was lodged vide order dated 04.12.07 passed by the Registrar.

In the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the requirements to be complied with by him for moving a Curative Petition as provided in paragraphs 51 and 52 of the decision reported in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr. (2002 (4)

3

SCC  388).   He  has  alleged  that  the  decision rendered in Rupa Ashok Hurra’s  case violates  his fundamental  rights.   He  has  also  questioned  the necessity to obtain and produce a certificate from a Senior Advocate with regard to the fulfillment of the requirements specified in the said decision.

In  this  connection,  it  is  relevant  to  mention that Writ Petition 334/05 filed by Shiva Kant Jha under Article 32 of the Constitution requesting this Hon’ble Court to have a re-look and reconsideration of  the decision rendered by this Hon’ble  Court  in Rupa  Ashok  Hurra’s  case,  was  dismissed  by  this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 28.11.07.   In the said order, this Hon’ble Court held as follows:

“We  heard  petitioner-in-person  at length  and  learned  Additional  Solicitor General for India.  Petitioner argued that all  final  decisions  of  this  Court  are subject  to  the  remedy  available  under Article 32 of the Constitution.  Petitioner contended  that  there  may  be  occasions where  the  decisions  of  this  Court  may violate the fundamental rights of citizens and  under  those  circumstances,  the aggrieved  should  have  remedy  under Article  32  of  the  Constitution  against such  decisions.   In  support  of  his contentions,  he  referred  to  the  views of several learned authors and the decisions of English Courts.  It is not necessary to refer to them, as the question has been exhaustively  considered  by  the Constitution Bench of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra (supra).

4

Of course, the decision of this Court could be reviewed and if necessary varied in  appropriate  cases,  as  pointed  out  in Rupa Ashok Hurra.   The decision of an earlier Bench could also be overruled by a larger Bench. But we do not accept the submission  of  the  petitioner,  that  the decision of this Court which has attained finality  could  be  subjected  to  judicial review  under  Article  33  of  the Constitution, at the instance of one of the parties to the decision.  We find no merit in the writ petition.  The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.”

This  Hon’ble  Court  having  held  that  the decision of this Hon’ble  Court which has attained finality  could  not  be  subjected  to  judicial  review under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner cannot  be  permitted  to  move  a  petition  under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a review of the decision rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Rupa Ashok  Hurra’s  case.  In  paragraph  59  of  the judgment  in  Rupa  Ashok  Hurra’s  case,  reference was  made  to  the  decision  in  Naresh  Shridhar Mirajkar  and others v.  State  of  Maharashtra  and another ((1966)  3  SCR 744),  wherein  it  was  held that the remedy of writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution is not available for the purpose of issue of writ of certiorari to correct judicial orders passed  by  or  in  relation  to  proceedings  pending before  the  Hon’ble  High  Courts.   In  the  decision reported  in  A.  R.  Antulay v.  R.  S.  Nayak  and another ((1988) 2 SCC 602), relying upon the nine Judges  Bench Judgment  of  this  Hon’ble  Court,  it was  held  by  this  Hon’ble  Court  that  it  must  be taken as concluded that the judicial proceedings in this Court are not subjected to the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.

5

Since  the  petitioner-in-person  failed  to  cure the  mandatory  defects  communicated  to  him,  the Curative  Petition  filed  by  the  petitioner-in-person was  already  lodged  under  Rules  6(3)  and  6(4)  of Order  X of  the  Supreme  Court  Rules,  1966,  vide order dated 04.12.07 passed by the Registrar and that  was  communicated  to  the  petitioner  vide Registry’s  letter  dated  04.12.07.   Therefore,  he  is not justified in challenging the letter dated 18.04.07 sent by the Registry intimating him the defects in the Curative Petition.  The petitioner has thus not made  out  any  reasonable  cause  justifying registration of the present petition purported to be one filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, in the light of  the decision of this Hon’ble  Court  in Writ Petition (C) No. 334/05.

For the reasons stated above, the Petition filed by  the  petitioner-in-person  bearing  D.  No. 33998/07, is hereby lodged under Rule 5 of Order XVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.

The  petitioner-in-person  may  be  informed accordingly.

Sd/- (T. Sivadasan)

Registrar (Judicial) 08.03.08”

4. In  this  petition,  the  petitioner  has also  annexed  order

dated 4.12.07 passed by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

The same reads as follows:

“Mr. Harendra Jha, who was the petitioner in W.P. (Cr) 266/2005 (D.No. 10507/05) has filed the

6

instant Curative Petition.  On scrutiny, the curative petition was found defective and the defects noted were  communicated  to  him  vide  this  Registry’s letters  dated  18.4.07  and  18.9.07.   Since  the defects were not cured,  he was given further four weeks time at last chance to cure the defects.  The same was intimated to him vide this Registry’s letter dated 22.10.07,  wherein the defects  noticed,  were once again mentioned.   He was informed that if he fails to cure the defects within four weeks from the date  of  the  receipt  of  the  letter,  action  as contemplated under Rules 6(3) and 6(4) of Order X of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 will be taken.  It is  seen that instead of  curing the defects  pointed out to him, the petitioner in person has stated in his letter dated 23.11.07 that he has moved a Writ Petition D. No. 33998/07 on 22.11.07 challenging the  validity  of  the  order  passed  in  Rupa  Ashok Hurrah case  and that proceedings may be  stayed till the disposal of the said writ petition.

On perusal of the records, it is seen that W.P. (Cr) D. 10507/05 filed by the petitioner in person was  dismissed  by  this  Hon’ble  Court  on  22.8.05 and  the  Review  Petition  No.  909/05  filed  by  him was also dismissed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 31.8.095.  Since the petitioner in person has failed to cure the defects communicated to him in spite of the several opportunities given to him, and since some of the defects noticed are mandatory in nature,  action  as  contemplated  under  Rules  6(3) and 6(4)  of  Order  X of  the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 is taken and I decline to register the instant curative petition.

The  petitioner  in  person  may  be  informed accordingly.

Sd/- (T. Sivadasan)

7

Registrar (Judicial) 4.12.07”

5. When the matter came up for hearing before this court,

we  gave  a  patient  hearing  to  the  petitioner-in-person  and

permitted  him to  argue  at  length  in  order  to  ascertain  his

grievance.   Unfortunately,  neither  in the  petition nor in his

oral  submissions,  he  could  articulate  what  directions  he

wants from the court.

6. The  petitioner-in-person  has  placed  reliance  on  a

Constitution  Bench  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Election

Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao AIR 1953 SC 210

and brought to our notice that the makers of the Constitution,

having decided to provide for certain basic safeguards for the

people  in  the  new  set  up,  which  they  called  fundamental

rights, evidently thought it necessary to provide also a quick

and inexpensive  remedy for the enforcement of such rights.

There is no quarrel with this legal preposition but we fail to

comprehend  how  this  case  can  in  any  manner  help  the

petitioner.

8

7. In  this  petition,  we  cannot  give  any  direction.   The

Criminal  Miscellaneous  Petition  and the  Writ  Petition being

devoid of any merit are accordingly dismissed.

..….….……………………..J.   (Dalveer Bhandari)

……….……………………..J.   (Harjit Singh Bedi)

New Delhi; August 26, 2008.

9