According to the petitioner, as reflected in the petition, basis of the petition is a companyy of the representation purported to have been received from one Ram Sarup which was addressed to the President of India with companyies to the Chief Justice of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Governor of Haryana and Bar Council of India wherein allegations were made against respondent No.3.
It is number clear from the writ petition as to whether the petitioner had sent any representation to the President and other companystitutional functionaries as the enclosures to the writ petition show that aforesaid Ram Sarup had sent representations to the President with companyies to the other functionaries.
Subsequently, an application was filed for permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition as in the meantime respondent No.3 has been appointed as a Judge.
The petitioner makes a grievance that aforesaid Ram Sarup had received acknowledgement of the representation addressed to the President of India wherein it was also numbered that the same had been forwarded to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs Department of Legal Affairs for appropriate action.
The second representation is dated 13.12.2003 in which reference has been made to a representation purported to be dated 28.11.2003.
In the representation dated 13.12.2003 reference is made to the acknowledgement dated 12.11.2003.
Only on the basis of what is stated therein of which apparently the petitioner himself cannot legitimately claim to have any personal knowledge the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was dismissed.
No companyy of any representation dated 28.10.2003 as indicated in Annexure P 2 has been filed along with the petition.
The companyy of the representation dated 18.10.2003 shows that it was sent by Ram Sarup.
But the companyy of purported acknowledgement filed as Annexure P 2 shows as if it was sent by the petitioner.
The petition is purported to have been filed questioning the propriety of respondent No.3 being companysidered for appointment as a Judge.
The petitioner numberhere has stated that he has any personal knowledge of the allegations made against respondent No.3.
This creates an impression that the acknowledgment dated 12.11.2003, of the Presidents Secretariat relates to the representations sent by Ram Sarup.
But numberaction was taken to look into the allegations.
He does number even aver that he made any effort to find out whether the allegations have any basis.
