HINDU PERSONAL LAW BOARD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reliefs, which have been sought in these proceedings purportedly filed in the public interest, are as follows:

(2.) The petitioner had filed an earlier petition, being Misc. Bench Petition No.10220 of 2013, seeking identical reliefs. On 31.10.2013, a Division Bench of this Court observed that despite the amendments, which have been brought into force in Chapter XXII Rule 1 (3A) of the Rules of this Court, following a decision of the Supreme Court, the petition did not disclose anything about the credentials of the petitioner or of his antecedents. The coordinate Bench directed that the petition would have to be heard as a Public Interest Litigation. Accordingly, when the petition came up before the Division Bench, it was dismissed by an order dated 07 November 2013. The Division Bench observed that once the petition has been directed to be treated as a Public Interest Litigation, there was no question of the petitioner denying to file an affidavit in fulfillment of the requirement of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court. The Division Bench, while dismissing the petition, observed as follows:-

(3.) Now a petition has been filed afresh on an identical cause of action by the same party. The earlier order of the Division Bench dated 07 November 2013 specifically records that not merely was no disclosure in terms of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court made, no such intention has been shown by Sri Pande, who appears in person for the petitioner in his capacity as its President. In fact, the Division Bench also commented on the petitioner denying to file an affidavit in compliance of the requirement of the Rules. The petitioner has a grievance in regard to the order passed by the coordinate Division Bench on 07 November 2013. Obviously, the remedy cannot lie before this Bench.