RUPAU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTWITHSTANDING the total disapproval recorded by us in our recent judgment dated 13.12.2005 in Mani Shankar Pandey v. Union of India and Others :

(2.) ALTHOUGH the writ petition runs to typed 10 pages, the facts are very simple and straightforward and that could conveniently be stated in a small paragraph and they are: the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, Sagni Bai by name, went to Delhi (with whom and when she went to Delhi is not forthcoming). She went with her minor female child. She died in Delhi in the month of February 2006. An unnamed person brought the minor daughter of Sagni Bai and handed over her to the petitioner and told the petitioner that Sagni Bai died "on account of accident" which had taken place at a construction site at Delhi.

(3.) WE have read and re-read the writ petition. The source or the basis of the generalized allegations made against the entire body of the building contractors in New Delhi is not at all stated. In other words, the pleading of the petitioner is as vague as it could be and these generalized vague allegations cannot be verified by any rational technique or measure. The petitioner has not chosen to disclose the names of those contractors who violate Labour Laws and other Laws including Interstate Migrant Workmen (Regulation of the Employment and Conditions) Act, 1979. Having perused the very vague pleadings of the petitioner, at the threshold itself, we thought that it is not a fit case where the Court should step in under Article 226 of the Constitution and we, accordingly, told Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and indicated that we were not inclined to entertain the writ petition, but, Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, went on arguing and repeating the same submissions several times. We repeatedly told Shri B.P. Sharma that the precious time of the Court should not be allowed to be used in the way he used; nevertheless, learned counsel for the petitioner proceeded to repeat and reiterate the same contentions several times consuming considerate time of the Court. We strongly disapprove this. Time has come where the Constitutional Courts, particularly, this Court where roughly 75,000 of cases are pending for decision-making with only eight-Judge strength, should spend the Court-time, thereby meaning public time, judiciously and reasonably, and if any person whether he is litigant or his counsel, abuses the privilege of audience at the peril of others who wait for justice at the doors of the Court for years should be made accountable.