SUKH DEO NARAIN versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 20 July 1984

SUKH DEO NARAIN

v.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN

July 20, 1984

[0. CHIN'1APPA REDDY AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.]

Supreme Court Rules 1966-0rder .-YXXVI-A-In~erted by G.S.R. 1024 dated 19-8·1978-Application~ for transfer under Clause (I) of Article 139·1 of the Constitution-Requirements of i•alid petition.

Practice-Drafting and filing petitio11 in casual and careless n1anner-Whether proper discharge of duty by advocate to court and client.

A petition for withdrawing a writ petition pending in the High Court to the Supreme Court UIJ.der Article l 39A (1) of the Constitution mention-ed nothing else except that the writ p~tition pending in the High Court raised exactly the sarne questi:ins as those r,dscd in a special leave petition pending in the Supreme Court. What the questions were and what the fa~ts of the cases were was not disclosed.

Dismissing the petition,

HELD': It is most discourteous and disrespectful to the highest court in the country to file such indifferent petitions. The advocate;, is not discharging his dury either to the court or to the client. [200C]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 344 of 1983.

Under article !39A of the Constitution of India for transfer of Writ Petition No. 475 of 1983 pending before the Rajasthan High Court.

D. Bhandari for the Petitioner (Not Present)

B. D. Sharma for the Respondent.

'

The Order of the court was delivered by

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

A

B

c

D

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. This petition is totally bereft of any statement of facts. It has been drafted and filed in a most casual and careless manne~. All that is stated in the petition is that th~ Writ Petition pending· in the Rajasthan High Court raises exactly the same questions as those raised in SLP (Civil) No. 7561/83 pending in th;s Court and the writ petition may, therefore, be trans-• ferrcd to this Court. Nothing else is mentioned. No facts relating to either case are mentioned. Even the alleged common questions are not stated. We can only say that it is most discourteous and disrespectful to the highest court in the country to file such indiffe-rent petitions. The advocate is not discharging his duty either to the court or to the client.

Transfer petition is dismissed.

H.S.K.

Petition dismissed.