Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an advocate practicing in the Bombay High Court, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of Respondent No.7 as an additional judge of the Bombay High Court. The petition was presented before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the petition was an instance of blatant abuse of the process of the court. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra, where it was noted that trumpery proceedings waste judicial time that could otherwise be spent on genuine litigants. The court dismissed the petition with costs, holding that such frivolous litigation cannot be entertained.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Appointment of Judges - Quo Warranto - Maintainability - Petition filed by an advocate questioning the appointment of an additional judge of the Bombay High Court - Court held that the petition is an instance of blatant abuse of the process of the court and dismissed it with costs - Held that such trumpery proceedings waste judicial time and are not maintainable (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petition challenging the appointment of an additional judge of the High Court is maintainable and not an abuse of the process of the court.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed as an instance of blatant abuse of the process of the court.
Law Points
- Abuse of process of court
- Frivolous litigation
- Quo warranto
- Public Interest Litigation
