The Supreme Court has recently stated that a judge taking up a case not specifically assigned by the Chief Justice is an “act of gross impropriety” and that they have to follow discipline.
A bench comprising of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal stated if it is not followed then the roster notified by the Chief Justice will have no meaning.
The bench also imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on the 3 litigants who were found to have indulged in forum shopping.
The bench observed, “This is a classic case of forum hunting by the second to fourth respondents. This is a case of gross abuse of process of law.”
The top court stated, “This is a fit case where the second to fourth respondents must be saddled with costs. We quantify the amount of the costs at Rs 50,000.”
It asked them to deposit the cost with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within a month.
The apex court heard an appeal challenging an order passed by the Rajasthan High Court.
The appeal was filed against the May order of the High Court, which directed that no coercive steps be taken against three persons in connection with eight FIRs.
The 3 litigants were accused in 8 criminal cases. After a Rajasthan High Court judge denied them bail, they filed a separate civil writ petition, which was placed before another judge.
The civil writ petition contained prayers to club the FIRs against them. During the course of deciding the civil case, they were also granted interim relief.
A complainant, Ambalal Parihar, at whose instance 6 FIRs were registered against the 3 persons, approached the top court against the High Court’s order and said that the method of filing a civil writ petition was invented and it was done to avoid the roster judge who had not granted interim relief.
The apex court wondered how a civil writ petition for clubbing First Information Reports could be entertained.
The Registry of the Rajasthan High Court was also directed to place a copy of the top court’s order before the High Court bench hearing the criminal pleas by the 3 accused.
