1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8889 of 2008 RAM NARAYAN SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 7. 31.08.2010 The appears in person. On the previous date the Court considered it proper to aid him in the presentation of his case by requesting Shri Ashok Kumar Choudhary, advocate, who was present in the court room to present the arguments on his behalf. The matter was adjourned to enable Shri Choudhary to hold consultations with the petitioner. Shri Choudhary submits that he held consultations with the petitioner. Shri Choudhary requested to be permitted to recluse himself from the case. The Court permits him to do so. The Court then asked the petitioner whether he would like to have the assistance of any other counsel which the Court may again provide to him free of cost to enable the best representation of his case in his own interest. The petitioners stated that he does not need assistance and shall argue the matter himself. The relief sought is for quashing his order of termination dated 20.10.2001 and to regularize him by reinstatement. He also seeks recall/review of order dated 29.08.2002 in C.W.J.C. No.13096/2000 which, he alleges, was obtained by playing “Fraud” upon the Court by private respondent No.8, the then Advocate General. The petitioner was engaged as a personal assistant on contract basis in the office of the Advocate General of this Court 2 on 8.5.1991 for a period of one year. His services were extended for another one year. He was terminated on 23.3.1999. He questioned the same in C.W.J.C. No.3401/1999 which by order dated 21.4.2000 reinstated him in contractual capacity subject to the rights of the respondents with regard to a selection test. The petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.13096/2000 for regularization of his services. The order dated 29.8.2002 deals with the complete facts of the case and therefore the Court does not consider it necessary to reiterate each and every fact except to the extent necessary for the present order. While the writ petition was pending, his service was terminated on 20.10.2001. He claims to have filed I.A. No.5543/01 on 27.11.2001 challenging his termination and the appointment of seven other persons. The writ petition was dismissed on the date aforesaid. The petitioner was expected to enclose the orders of the Letters Patent Bench in the present proceedings but did so only after it was so directed. L.P.A. No. 1070/02 was dismissed on 7.10.2002. The petitioner questioned the same before the Supreme Court. He should have annexed the order of the Supreme Court also, but did so only after being directed to do so. The special leave petition (Civil) No.12390/03 was dismissed on 2.4.2004. The present writ petition has then been filed four years later on 20.5.2008. The petitioner arguing in person urged that the order dated 29.8.2002 in C.W.J.C. No.13096/2000 was passed without considering his I.A. No.5543/01. The Advocate General 3 played a “Fraud” by not apprising the Court properly that his case was pending consideration in the Law Department for regularization. The petitioner avers in the writ application that “is it just?” The petitioner demands “Justice”. It was submitted that the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.13096/2000 “is not tenable in the eye of law as each and every point has already been decided by another Judge of the Hon’ble High Court in C.W.J.C. No.3401/99 and if the Hon’ble Court is not agreed with the judgement passed in C.W.J.C. No.3401/99, the matter ought to have been referred to a larger Bench….”, “ The reason given in the order against the petitioner passed in C.W.J.C. No.13096/2000 is baseless, out of record and suppression of real fact…..” He “thinks” that justice should be for all. I have no word to explain my mental agony because I have grate (great) honour for the judiciary but found handicapped to say the truth due to fear, from High Court….” The Hon’ble Court has not touched I.A. No.5543/01 and taken silent on I.A. in the order in spite of noting the due date of due arrear. There is not a whisper of a statement in his entire pleadings what prompted him and why he preferred the present application four years later after dismissal of his appeal by the Supreme Court with any explanation for delay. If the petitioner had filed an amendment application in C.W.J.C. No.13096/2000 questioning his termination it was for him to press it appropriately by obtaining proper orders allowing the amendment application, impleading the persons 4 appointed, as mentioned therein, as party respondents. The mere filing of an I.A. is one aspect and the pressing of the application is another aspect. There is no statement that the seven persons appointed were ever impleaded as party respondents. The order in C.W.J.C. No.13096/2000 contains no discussion of this I.A. The natural presumption is that he never pressed it. If he did so, and the Court failed to consider it, it was for him to raise the issue in his appeal before the Division Bench or the Supreme Court. There is no discussion with regard to the same in the aforesaid orders and neither does the present writ petition state that he did so. That alone is his sheet anchor in the present writ application. It is clearly barred by the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata. Once the matter has been tested and relief declined on merits up to the Supreme Court, the question of reopening of issues all over again on the pretext of a semblance of a right, even which does not exist, does not arise. The counter affidavit at paragraph 22 states that on 26.3.2007 twenty contractual posts were advertised for Stenographers and applications invited. The petitioner also applied. He failed to compete in the test for appointment. In his rejoinder to the same at paragraph 7 he does not deny this fact. These were developments after dismissal of his Special Leave Petition on 2.4.2004. The petitioner has concealed this fact in the writ application and it was left for the respondents to reveal the same. A person coming to a writ court for relief is not only 5 expected but is also required to come with clean facts, place all necessary facts before the Court and then seek adjudication. In (2007) 8 SCC 449 (Prestige Lights Limited Vs State Bank of India) the Court has held at paragraph 33 and 35 as follows:- “33.It is thus clear that though the appellant-Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.” The petitioner had spent time in the office of the Advocate General on contract basis. Probably exposure at one time to a legal environment inspires and spurs him to litigate without appreciating procedures and intricacies of the law while declining good legal assistance. The pleadings in the writ application which have been noticed above are scandalous, to say the least. The portals of the 6 Court are open for one and all including a person who wishes to argue himself. Arguments in person may become a compelling necessity in absence of resources. The Court shall always lend a listening to such genuine persons. But, when the Court offers assistance free of cost and it is declined, matters may appear to be different. A person aggrieved has a right to approach the Court for appropriate relief. The perception of aggrieved shall necessarily have to be individualistic. This individual perception however cannot be perceived as a liberty to misuse the Court and clog the Court proceedings burdening it and preventing attention to genuine litigation. The Court was inclined to impose heavy costs for what it considers as frivolous litigation wasting the time of the Court. It, however, refrains from doing so with the hope that saner wisdom shall prevail upon the petitioner. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)