1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A.Z. NO. 227/11 IN L.P.A. NO. 213/10 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4989/2008 Shri Santosh Kumar s/o Bhanudas Dhaye .vs. State of Maharashtra & others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Applicant/Appellant in person, Mr. M. Pathan, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 5, Mr. A.S. Kilor, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 & 4. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : APRIL 19, 2011. 1] The applicant has filed this application seeking compensation in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the persons mentioned in the application. At the hearing of the matter, it appeared to the Court that the applicant, who was appearing in person was not familiar with the Court procedure or the law but insisted on arguing the matter. In these circumstances, the learned Government Pleader who was present in Court pointed out to the Court certain observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwneshwar Singh .vs. Union of India & others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 327 pertaining to the problem of 2 parties in person who insisted on arguing the matter themselves. The Supreme Court observed as under :- “3. ........................ Taking note of the increase in the number of cases in which the parties appear in person in this Court, we feel that a stage has now reached when this Court, on the administrative side, is required to consider the desirability of providing some procedure to scrutinise their petitions and screen the parties, appearing in person, and only such of the parties who are certified by an authority/committee as “competent” to assist the Court in person, may, with the leave of the Court, be permitted to argue in person. Those of the litigants, who are not so certified, or those to whom leave is not granted by the Court, should be referred to the Legal Aid and Advice Board or the “Supreme Court Senior Advocates Free Legal Aid Society”, which is a voluntary body and offers assistance, in appropriate cases, irrespective of the financial position of the concerned litigant. Apart from providing proper assistance to the court, the assistance by the lawyers would ultimately tend to be in the interest of the litigants themselves. It 3 would also take care of preventing objectionable and unparliamentary language in the pleadings, which some of the ‘parties in person’ permit themselves the liberty of indulging in, not being familiar with the court craft and the bounds of law within which the parties must formulate their pleadings in proper language. Such a course would advance public interest while safeguarding individual interest also. Our experience shows that every advocate – senior, not so senior and junior -- whenever requested by the Court to offer assistance has responded positively and generously and therefore the interest of the ‘party in person’ who would be represented by such a counsel would stand adequately protected. We say no more on this aspect at this stage.” 2] Apparently, the applicant has taken umbrage to the pointing of that decision to this Court and has filed the present application seeking compensation from the learned Government Pleader because he pointed out the said case to this Court. According to the applicant, the citation is irrelevant and this amounts to doing something “false and fabricated”. 4 3] Having heard the applicant on this aspect, we are convinced that he does not understand the terminology “false and fabricated” and has used those words for describing what he believes to be irrelevant citation. If we had formed the impression that he has tried to intimidate Advocates from discharging their duties, we would have taken action for contempt of court against the applicant. The applicant has also prayed for compensation from the following persons which includes Advocates, Assistant Government Pleaders, etc. in the following sums :- Sr. No. Name of the person Post or work as Entitled to get grossly inadequate compensation as a token award in Rupees 1 Nitin Sambre Govt. Pleader 200,000 + more 2 N.S. Khubalkar A.G.P. 200,000 + more 3 Smt. Tajeshvini Khade A.G.P. 200,000 + more 4 T.R. Kankale A.G.P. 200,000 + more 5 Muzumdar A.G.P. 200,000 + more 6 A.S. Kilor Advocate 200,000 + more 7 S.S. Singane Advocate 200,000 + more 8 Amol Mardikar Advocate 200,000 + more 9 State of Maharashtra, related Education Secretary 200,000 + more 5 10 V.P. Patil Education Officer (Sec.) Yeotmal 200,000 + more 11 S.S. Patil Dy. E.O. Yavatmal 200,000 + more 12 P.V. Dhumane Dy. E.O. Yavatmal 200,000 + more 13 Chandekar E.O. I/c. (Sec.) Yeotmal 200,000 + more 14 Shewale E.O. (Sec.) I/c. Dy. E.O. Yavatmal 200,000 + more 15 G.S. Jadhao E.O. (Sec.) Yeotmal 200,000 + more 16 Smt. Saroj Niyogi I/c. Court cases 200,000 + more 17 S.K. Dhadod H.M. Smt. JRV Kamathwada 200,000 + more According to the applicant, the aforesaid persons are responsible for doing severe injustice and causing mental agony from 22.7.1992 and that they are playing fraud and that is why litigants have to appear in person before this Court and the Apex Court. It appears that these allegations are based on the assumption by the applicant that the pleading of a case in a manner which is not correct according to him, either on facts or law, amounts to fraud. The applicant appears to be grossly misguided and hence, we do not propose to take any further action against him. 6 4] In addition, the applicant submitted that he is entitled to compensation because though the notice was made returnable on 20.7.2010 by this Court in its order dated 8.6.2010, the respondents have not filed reply and hence, he is entitled to compensation. This submission is equally frivolous. 5] In view of our observations above, we see absolutely no merit in this application and consider it appropriate to reject the same with costs in the sum of Rs.2500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred) payable to High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur. Judge Judge J.