BUDHAPRAKASH Vs. JAMES K JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT Nos.1 to 3 in O.P(Ind.) No.19 of 2009 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram are the petitioners before me. Prayer in this petition is to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext.P1(O.P.(Ind.) No.19 of 2009) and the suit for damages pending before Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram being illegal, unsustainable and an abuse of the process of court. Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed O.P(Ind.) No.19 of 2009 against petitioners and respondent No.2-defendant No.4. Case is that respondent No.1 had applied to the post of Administrative Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal and was selected by the Selection Committee but he lost it on account of certain adverse reports given by petitioners and respondent No.2 as officials of the Intelligence Bureau. Hence respondent No.1 claimed damages to the tune of Rupees One crore and stating that court fee payable on the plaint is `.8,18,400/- which he is unable to pay requested that he may be permitted to sue as an indigent person. Petitioners have preferred their objection to O.P(Ind.) No.19 of 2009. They contended that the petition (Ind.) itself is not maintainable in view of decision of this Court in W.P(C) No.16915 of 2005 which would operate as res judicata on the claim made by respondent No.1. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners would contend that proceedings before the learned Sub Judge is nothing but an abuse of process of the court since according to the learned Senior Advocate this Court in the judgment in W.P(C) No.16915 of 2005 has found that non- appointment of respondent No.1 was within the powers of the authority concerned.

(2.) HAVING heard learned Senior Advocate on the questions raised in this petition I am not persuaded to think and it is required to exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution to quash the pending proceedings. It is open to the petitioners to raise all relevant contentions before the learned Sub Judge in answer to the claim made by respondent No.1 to permit him sue as an indigent person.