1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 840 OF 2008 DIST.: MUMBAI Rajpatprasad Sitaram Arkh ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents The Petitioner, in person, present Mr. A.S. Gadkari, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.A.KUMBHAKONI,JJ. DATE: JULY 15, 2008 P. C.:- This case was listed earlier. We were not able to understand anything from the Writ Petition, and we had requested the petitioner to engage a counsel, or leave it to the Court to engage a counsel for him, which he refused. 2. Thereafter, we asked to file written submissions, which have been filed. These submissions are also as vague as the original petition. 3. In the meantime, the petitioner has placed on record a letter 2 written by him to the Registrar for transfer of this case to another Bench, as, according to him, one of the Judges of this Court told him that he does not understand Hindi, which is obviously false. Such a statement was not at all made by the Court at any stage, because both the Judges were familiar with Hindi, and one of them was even familiar with Marathi. Obviously, this is a false statement made. We would have initiated contempt proceedings, but we are restraining ourselves, because we believe that the petitioner does not understand what he is writing and what he is arguing. The said letter dated 7th July, 2008 is marked 'X' for identification, and kept on record. 4. The main reliefs claimed in this Writ Petition are:- “(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or in the nature of Mandamus or writ any other appropriate writ under Article(s) 226 and 227 of (the) Constitution of India directing Respondent No.1 to take necessary actions in accordance with law against all the Respondents (in) Writ Petition No. 630/2000 from Respondent Nos. 2 to 14L expeditiously in a time bound manner and report to this Hon'ble High Court; (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order CBI Investigation and report into allegation of false synopsis and other documents submitted by Respondent No. 1 & 12; 3 (c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct disciplinary action including suspension of Advocate for Respondents No. 10, 12, 13, 14 & 14J who appeared unauthorized without Vakalatnama as per letter dated 15.2.2007; (d) That this Hon' ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to file affidavit in reply of petition as to why letter dated 13.03.2007 was forwarded to the Joint Secretary & Legal Adviser, M/O Law, Justice & Company Affairs, New Marine Lines, Mumbai; (e) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondents No.2 to 14L to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.15 crores for causing loss and damages, mental torture and harassment to the Petitioner; (f) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct that cost of this petition be provided for;” 5. We do not understand how can this Court take any action against the respondents in another Writ Petition, viz., Writ Petition No. 630 of 2000. However, it is submitted that that Writ Petition has been disposed of. It is not even alleged that any order passed in Writ Petition No. 630 of 2000 has been violated by any of the respondents. 6. The petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. BILAL NAZKI, J. 4 A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.