It has to be welcomed with both hands that the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court in a most refreshing, robust, rational, remarkable and recent judgment titled Umesh Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan & Ors and other connected petitions in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12657/2024 that was pronounced as recently as on 6.9.2024 has taken a very grim view of tendency of some litigants to file repeated identical petitions. It not only wastes the most precious time of the courts but as held by the Jaipur Bench that it is a serious menace to the administration of justice. This alone explains why it was held that such repeated petitions amounted to abuse of the process of law that consumed Court’s time and clogged the infrastructure. So there can be just no gainsaying that this most reprehensible tendency of filing repeated identical petitions has to be most strictly dealt with by the courts!

It was thus entirely in the fitness of things that the Jaipur Bench very rightly decided to impose a symbolic cost of Rs 1000/- on numerous petitioners to be deposited in the Litigants Welfare Fund of Rajasthan High Court within one week for approaching the Court with the same cause of action that had already been decided by the Court on two occasions with specific directions to everyone with same cause of action to directly approach the concerned Government Department by filing representations and also directing the Department to decide the representations in light of the Court’s judgment. We also see that pursuant to which the concerned Department was directed by the Court to decide the representation of such petitioner within three weeks. Accordingly, we see that the petitions were disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court in case their representations were decided adversely or were not decided within 3 weeks as stipulated.

At the very outset, this pragmatic, progressive, pertinent and persuasive judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand of Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
Since common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the parties, all the matters are taken up together for final disposal at this stage.

As we see, the Bench discloses in para 2 that:
All the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions against the respondents to grant them annual grade increment for the services rendered by them from 1st July to 30th June and consequently, re-fix their pensionary benefits.

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 10 that:
Since the controversy involved in these petitions has been settled twice by this Court in the case of Vijay Singh (supra) and Ramesh Chandra Sharma (supra), and it has specifically been held in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma (supra) that those persons who have not approached this Court are not supposed to approach this Court and they may straightaway approach the Department concerned by way of filing representation and it is expected from the Department to decide the same in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Vijay Singh (supra).

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 11 that:
In the case of K.I. Shephard and Ors vs. Union of India and Ors reported in 1987 (4) SCC 431, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the employees who had not come to the Court should not be penalized for not having litigated and would be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners in that case. It has also been held that the excluded employees, who had not approached the Court, shall also be entitled to the same benefits, as the petitioners in that case were entitled under the judgment of that case.

Quite significantly, the Bench propounds in para 13 stating that:
Repeated petitions, filed by the litigants for the same common cause of action and for redressal of same grievance, amount to abuse of the process when general directions are already issued by the Court in favour of one and all, by issuing directions to the Government authorities for providing the same benefits to all the aggrieved persons. Then such person are not expected to knock the doors of the Court again by filing similar petitions with the same prayers.

It would be instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 14 that:
The sanctity of the judicial order is required to be eroded seriously and any attempt of misuse of the process is required to be dealt firmly. The valuable time of other litigants should not be allowed to be taken by such litigants, such similarly situated litigants should not be allowed to misuse the judicial leniency.

Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 15 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that:
Courts are chocked with several kinds of litigation. Filing of similar, repeated, identical and groundless petitions constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in attending the cases filed only to get similar relief which has already been granted by making the judgment in rem. Filing of such similar petitions for worthless cause amounts to gross abuse of the process of law and wastage of valuable time of the Court.

No less significant is what is then expounded in para 15.1 stating that, Unfortunately, as this batch of similar and identical writ petitions exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. This batch of petitions is an illustration of how a decided issue has occupied the time of the Court and how successive similar petitions are filed unnecessarily to consume the time of other litigants who are waiting for hearing and disposal of their cases.

Most forthrightly, the Bench while taking potshots at the petitioners lays down in para 16 stating that:
Inspite of passing specific directions in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma (supra), that none of the similarly situated persons like the petitioners are expected to approach this Court by way of filing similar petitions again and again with regard to the same relief, which has already been given to them by granting liberty to approach the concerned Department by way of filing representation(s) and their representation(s) were directed to be decided by the concerned Department in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Vijay Singh (supra), even then, the petitioners have approached this Court again by way of filing these dozens of petitions which not only have opened flood gates but also unnecessarily increased the burden of this Court, to pass the same order again and again, which are in fact not required to be passed repeatedly as the judgment passed in the case of Vijay Singh (supra) has been made as a judgment in rem in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma (supra).

Truth be told, the Bench very rightly points out in para 17 that:
The petitioners are unnecessarily wasting the time of other litigants who are waiting in queue for disposal of their cases for a considerable time.

As a corollary, the Bench directs in para 18 holding that:
Hence, under these circumstances, a petty symbolic amount of token cost of Rs.1000/- is imposed upon each of the petitioners for consuming the time of other litigants by way of filing these unnecessary, unwarranted similar and identical petitions.

In addition, the Bench further directs in para 19 holding that:
Each petitioner is directed to deposit a cost of Rs.1,000/- in the Litigants Welfare Fund of Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench, within a period of one week. In case, they deposit the amount of cost i.e. Rs.1000/- within the above stipulated time and furnish a receipt thereof before the concerned Department along with the representation, the concerned Department (respondent) would decide the same expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with the copy of this order and receipt of deposit of amount of cost of Rs.1000/-, in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Vijay Singh (supra) and Ramesh Chandra Sharma (supra).

The disobedience of the orders of this Court by the respondents and the concerned Departments would amount to contempt of the order of this Court and the same would be viewed seriously if the similarly situated persons like the petitioners are compelled to approach this Court again for the same cause and for redressal of their same grievance.

Most remarkably, the Division Bench clearly holds in para 20 holding precisely that:
Imposition of cost is necessary in such like matters in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik (supra) to ensure that access to justice by Courts is available to the citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors of justice would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. It is a duty and obligation casted upon all the Courts that legal system is not allowed to be exploited unnecessarily to defeat or delay the justice delivery system.

Most sagaciously, the Bench propounds in para 21 holding that:
The reason for imposing token cost of Rs.1000/- each upon all the petitioners is to restrain them from over burdening the Courts and increasing pendency of the cases. Once the issue involved in these petitions has already been decided in their favour and they have been granted liberty to approach the concerned Department, then they are not expected to approach this Court without adjudication of their representations. Every litigation has to come to an end at some point of time and similar and identical litigation cannot be allowed to flourish again and again for the luxury of the litigants, who are burdening this Court unnecessarily seeking similar order again and again.

While adding a caveat, the Bench then directs in para 22 stipulating that:
The order of imposing cost would not apply to those petitions which have been filed before the decision of the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma (supra) i.e. the petitions filed prior to 15.07.2024.

Resultantly, the Bench directs in para 23 mentioning that:
With the aforesaid directions, all these petitions along with stay applications and all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of.

What’s more, the Bench further directs in para 24 holding that:
Registry is directed to place a copy of this order separately in each connected file.

Finally, we see that the Bench then very rightly concludes by holding and stipulating in para 25 that:
Needless to observe that the petitioners and all similarly situated persons would be at liberty to approach this Court in case their representation is decided adversely or if the same is not decided within a period of three months. No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh