MALTIBATRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR . Miss Malti Batra's case does not seem to be as complicated as her many writ petitions and miscellaneous applications have made it out to be. She has filed petition after petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ignoring all rules of pleadings, refusing to take legal advice from lawyers and persistently trying to overreach the court by directly communicating with one of the Judges on the bench. The Petitioner's conduct is not of a normal person. She appears to be her own worst enemy. We often come across litigants who argue in person but none as adamant, confused or simple -minded as Dr. Miss Malit Batra.

(2.) A Petitioner may approach the Court to seek relief for issuance of a writ of Certiorari Mandamus Prohibition but must make out a case for quashing of administrative orders or for issuance of a mandatory or prohibitory order. Lengthy petitions containing wild and fanciful allegations, couched in language difficult to understand, are the hallmarks of the Petitioner's many cases. She wants the Court to grant her relief of her choice, not the relief she is legally entitled. She has a knack of making things difficult for herself and also for the Court. Nevertheless, we must proceed to decide her case, trying to remain as impartial and uninfluenced in her fancy pleadings.

(3.) THEREAFTER , CWP 19193 of 2006 was disposed of on 11th December, 2006, with a direction to the competent authority to take a final decision on the review application filed by the Petitioner, by passing a well reasoned speaking order.