1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4198 OF 2011 1. S.P. Rao, Lawyer, Nagpur – 23 (Mobile : 9860423021) // versus // 1.Parliament, New Delhi – 11. 2.The Supreme Court of India, New Delhi – 11. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Petitioner in person. CORAM : S.A.BOBDE & M.N.GILANI, JJ. Date of Reserving order : 06.09.2011. Date of Pronouncing Order : 09.09.2011. ORDER (Per : M.N.Gilani, J.) 1. Heard the petitioner in person. 2. The petitioner, who claims to be a lawyer, seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking reliefs which, according to us, are unusual, incomprehensible and per se untenable. The petitioner has arrayed the Parliament and the Supreme Court of India as respondents No.1 and 2. In the petition he has reproduced various articles in the Constitution and some events taking place around. There are averments regarding powers of the President, Vice- President, appointment of various constitutional authorities etc. Paragraph 19 deals with prayer clause which comprises sub-paragraphs (a) to (i). Reproduction of one of the sub-paragraphs in the prayer clause would reveal how the petition is misconceived, incomprehensible and per se untenable : 2 “(b) Parliament – constituted under Article 79, composed under Articles 80, 81, 331, replaced by section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1950, amended to political parties parliament vide section 29-A wef 15.6.1989, and President election under Article 54, Vice President of India is not consisted in Articles 79, 80 are facts submitted vide para 17 of this Writ Petition stated that the “Parliament is not the law making authority in the Constitution of India nor authority of law, nor having constituent power, to make laws on the items of matters in Articles 245, 246 and amend the Constitution under Article 368, and to make laws contrary to Articles 265 and 300-A, are not enforceable by Supreme Court under Article 32 and by High Courts under Article 226 of Constitution of India.” 3. All other prayer clauses are of similar nature making no sense. After reading the entire petition and hearing the matter we could not comprehend as to what the petitioner wants to convey and what relief he is seeking. We, therefore, have no alternative than to dismiss the petition in limine. The petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE RR..