Madhya Pradesh High CourtRaju Kacher vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2017:: 1 ::
                                                                         WP-19371-2017 (PIL)




                            Writ Petition No.19371/2017 (PIL)
                                    (Raju Kacher vs The State of M.P.)

Jabalpur, Dated : 20.12.2017.
                    Shri Rajesh Chand, Advocate for the petitioner.


                    The petitioner in the present public interest litigation has

              challenged the sale deed executed by Smt. Madhu Singh, said to

              be the mother of respondent No.4 - Vikram Singh in favour ofrespondent No.5 - Nagar Parishad on 20.07.2016.Learned counsel for the petitioner was warned in the very

              beginning that the present petition appears to be an abuse of the

              process of law, having failed in the earlier writ petition but, the

              counsel insisted to argue the matter and therefore, we have heard

              the arguments and proceed to decide the writ petition.The grievance of the petitioner is that the sale consideration

              has been inflated in the said sale deed; therefore, there is a loss

              of public money. The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs in

              the present writ petition:"(i)   The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a
                    writ and call the entire records relating to present case.:: 2 ::WP-19371-2017 (PIL)(ii)    This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the
      Registry dated 20.07.2016 and direct respondents No.1 to
      3 to prosecute the respondents No.4 and 5 including the
      individuals who are responsible in such transaction by
      lodging criminal case under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468
      and 471 read with 34 of theIPC.(iii)   This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the
      respondents No.1 to 3 to recover the amount from
      respondents No.4 and 5 and persons responsible in the
      transaction     and   deposit   the   same   with    Nagar
      Parishad/Government Account.(iv)    This Hon'ble Court direct respondents No.1 to 3 to
      immediately     conduct   departmental   enquiry    against
      respondent No.5 and other officials involved in the
      transaction."Earlier the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.9019/2017

before this Court which was dismissed on 24.07.2017. In the said

writ petition, the petitioner has claimed following reliefs:"7.1    That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
      give the direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to produce
      the entire proceeding in relation to Annexure P/1 & P/2
      for perusal of this Hon'ble Court.7.2     That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
      set aside the registry Annexure P/2 dated 20.7.2016 and
      direct Respondent No.1 to 3 to prosecute the respondent
      No.4 and 5 and who are responsible in such transaction
                             :: 3 ::WP-19371-2017 (PIL)




proceeding and lodged the criminal case U/s 420, 467,
468, 471, 34, 120-BIPC.7.3      That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct to the respondent No.1 to 3 to re-cover the amount
from Respondent No.4 and 5 and responsible person and
deposit in the Nagar Parishad/Govt. Account.
7.4      The Hon'ble Court also direct to the respondents
No.1 to 3 remove the respondent No.4 from the post of
President in Nagar Parishad Rampur Baghelan District
Satna.7.5      That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
conduct an department inquiry against Respondent No.5
and other Nagar Parishad employee who are involved in
such conspiracy and misusing the public money and also
direct to the police agency to register criminal case
against the Resp. No. 4 and 5 and others responsible
person who are involved in such transaction and
conspiracy and directed to the respondent No.1 to 3 to
take appropriate steps.7.6      That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
remove the respondent No.4 from the post of President.
7.7      That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondents No.1 to 3 stopped financial and
administrative power of respondents No.4 and 5.
7.8      That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be also awarded
relief which is deem fit and proper looking the facts and
circumstances of the case be awarded to the petitioner
including the cost of the litigation.":: 4 ::WP-19371-2017 (PIL)




      The said writ petition was dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/-

but as per the petitioner, the cost of Rs.5000/- has been reduced

to Rs.500/- in Review Petition No.535/2017 in view of his plea

that he is a poor person and was ill-advised in filing the aforesaid

petition. The order passed by this Court on 06.09.2017 read as

under:"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
      the petitioner is a poor person and was ill-advised in filing
      the aforesaid petition and since it was the first endeavor
      of such nature, the cost imposed on him is excessive, as
      the petitioner is a poor person, the same may be
      dispensed with.After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner,
      this court is of opinion that the cost imposed on the
      petitioner vide order dated 24.07.2017 may not be totally
      wiped out but, it can be reduced from Rs.5000/- to
      Rs.500/-.In the circumstances, this review petition is partly
      allowed by reducing the cost from Rs.5000/- to Rs.500/-
      which shall be paid by the petitioner to the M.P. State
      Legal Services Authority, Jabalpur."We find that the present petition is gross abuse of the

process of law. The petitioner has filed earlier petition which was
                                                       :: 5 ::WP-19371-2017 (PIL)




                      dismissed with costs. The costs were reduced for the reason

                      pleaded by the petitioner that he is poor and ill-advised in filing of

                      petition but, again the petitioner has filed present petition. The

                      relief claimed in both petitions is same. Therefore, the petitioner is

                      one whose conduct is contumacious who has invoked the writ

                      jurisdiction of this Court time and again for the same relief and

                      also misstated facts in review petition to seek indulgence from

                      this Court.We find that the petitioner cannot be permitted to claim the

                      same relief as was claimed in the earlier writ petition by way of

                      subsequent writ petition.The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.1 Lac

                      (Rupees One Lac). The cost be deposited with High Court of

                      Madhya Pradesh (Middle Income Group) Legal Aid Society within

                      one month.(Hemant Gupta)                      (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
                              Chief Justice                              Judge
     vinodDigitally signed by VINODVISHWAKARMADate: 2017.12.20 17:25:17+05'30'