B.SAILESH SAXENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 i.e., Union of India, State of Telangana and Registrar (Vigilance and Administration) of the High Court of Telangana to consider the representation dated 03.09.2019 submitted by the petitioner and take necessary action as per law for proceeding further with the proposal of appointment of respondent No. 4 as a Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana.

(2.) The petitioner is an Advocate and thus well aware of the legal system. He has been enrolled with the Bar Council of Telanagana since the year, 2000. In effect, the petitioner states that the recommendation of respondent No. 4 should not be processed for his elevation as a Judge of the High Court. The petitioner seeks to make various allegations against respondent No. 4 and other persons. We specifically posed to learned senior counsel for the petitioner as to what is the further fate of the decision rendered in WP No. 4023 of 2018 dated 08.06.2018 by a Bench of the Telangana High Court. We are informed that a review application has been filed. We have the benefit of the said judgment, though the petitioner did not annexe it with the present writ proceedings. We would like to discuss the ramifications of the said judgment.

(3.) In the said petition, the petitioner claimed that he was a legal advisor for the family of a Member of Parliament belonging to the Telugu Desam Party and legal counsel for other politically connected persons. He claimed to have suffered on account of political prejudices as the petitioner and his family members were being subjected to torture due to harassment by the police authorities. Various allegations against the local police authorities were made in that petition. The Court took note of the fact that there are various complaints pending investigation against the petitioner. In fact the petitioner had filed six writ petitions on behalf of fictitious non-existent persons. This was apart from seven more writ petitions filed by the petitioner in his capacity as counsel for certain third parties and when the efforts were made to serve notices on those persons, it was found that there were no such persons available at the address. The petitioner failed to produce the litigants in those proceedings, though one person arrested, is stated to have admitted that the petitioner and others projected an existing person as a non-existing person in a land grabbing case. In a nutshell, the allegation of the petitioner is involvement with such land grabbing cases and the action of the police and his endeavour to prevent the action on the pretext of his sufferings on account of legal assistance he was giving to persons of different political dispensations.