Before parting, we must once again reiterate our strong
disapproval of the practice which appears to be prevailing in the
Registry of the Aurangabad Bench of this court. The Registry
there does not seem to think it necessary to object to the
impleadment of the Hon'ble Judges comprising a Division Bench
or a Judge sitting singly as party respondents to review petitions
or applications in that nature.
We have not been shown any rule which requires such
impleadment. We, therefore, strongly recommend that hereafter,
the Registrar (Judicial) shall insist upon parties/litigants and
their advocates deleting the names of Hon'ble Judges as party
respondents to review petitions and until such deletion, the
matter should be treated as not ready or under objections.
Despite opportunity being given to the litigants and their
advocates to delete such names and references to the Hon'ble
Judges and personal allegations against them, if the same are not
deleted by carrying out appropriate amendments, the Registry
shall append a note on the proceedings themselves stating clearly
that parties and lawyers were asked to delete such references,
but there being no compliance, the matter comes to be placed
before an appropriate court for directions. That would enable the
appropriate court to dismiss such proceedings only on this
ground. Just as there is enough justification for discontinuance of
such practice because none can insist on such impleadment, its
discontinuance upholds a salutary principle.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10972 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3164 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3165 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 428 OF 2016
Common Citizen of India }
(Common Man) }
through Rakesh Omprakash }
Agarwal,
versus
The Hon'ble High Court }
Judicature of Bombay through }
Registrar General, High Court, }
Mumbai, Fort area, Mumbai, }
Mumbai Tal. Dist. Mumbai. }
2. The Hon'ble Chief Justice, }
High Court, through Registrar }
General, High Court,
3. The Hon'ble Judge }
Shri. Abhay Shriniwasji Oka }
High Court, through Registrar }
General, High Court,
4. The Hon'ble Judge }
Shri. Anil Kumar Menon }
High Court, through Registrar }
General,
5. State Government of }
Maharashtra, through Chief }
Secretary,
6. The Government of India }
through Chief Secretary, }
CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G. S. PATEL, JJ.
Pronounced on 6th May, 2016
Print Page
disapproval of the practice which appears to be prevailing in the
Registry of the Aurangabad Bench of this court. The Registry
there does not seem to think it necessary to object to the
impleadment of the Hon'ble Judges comprising a Division Bench
or a Judge sitting singly as party respondents to review petitions
or applications in that nature.
We have not been shown any rule which requires such
impleadment. We, therefore, strongly recommend that hereafter,
the Registrar (Judicial) shall insist upon parties/litigants and
their advocates deleting the names of Hon'ble Judges as party
respondents to review petitions and until such deletion, the
matter should be treated as not ready or under objections.
Despite opportunity being given to the litigants and their
advocates to delete such names and references to the Hon'ble
Judges and personal allegations against them, if the same are not
deleted by carrying out appropriate amendments, the Registry
shall append a note on the proceedings themselves stating clearly
that parties and lawyers were asked to delete such references,
but there being no compliance, the matter comes to be placed
before an appropriate court for directions. That would enable the
appropriate court to dismiss such proceedings only on this
ground. Just as there is enough justification for discontinuance of
such practice because none can insist on such impleadment, its
discontinuance upholds a salutary principle.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10972 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3164 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3165 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 428 OF 2016
Common Citizen of India }
(Common Man) }
through Rakesh Omprakash }
Agarwal,
versus
The Hon'ble High Court }
Judicature of Bombay through }
Registrar General, High Court, }
Mumbai, Fort area, Mumbai, }
Mumbai Tal. Dist. Mumbai. }
2. The Hon'ble Chief Justice, }
High Court, through Registrar }
General, High Court,
3. The Hon'ble Judge }
Shri. Abhay Shriniwasji Oka }
High Court, through Registrar }
General, High Court,
4. The Hon'ble Judge }
Shri. Anil Kumar Menon }
High Court, through Registrar }
General,
5. State Government of }
Maharashtra, through Chief }
Secretary,
6. The Government of India }
through Chief Secretary, }
CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G. S. PATEL, JJ.
Pronounced on 6th May, 2016
