Appearing In Person No Licence To File Repeated Petitions: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Costs On ‘Serial Chronic Litigant’
The Court also directed the Registry not to list any future case filed by petitioner until the costs were deposited.
Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by a litigant appearing in person and imposed costs of ₹2 lakh, holding that appearing without an advocate does not permit a party to file repeated petitions on an issue already decided.
The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking a direction to the Registrar of Societies to decide the petitioner’s representation for an inquiry into the affairs of a registered society and cancellation of its registration under Section 12D of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as applicable to Delhi. The Court found that the representation raised the same grounds and sought the same relief that had been considered in earlier proceedings.
A Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan, while noting that “the conduct of the petitioner shows that he is a serial chronic litigant”, further observed: “Appearing in person does not give the petitioner a licence to file petition after petition on the same issue. [sic] Such petitions waste the time of the Court, which could otherwise be spent on genuine litigants, and compel the respondents to defend themselves repeatedly on settled issues. The present petition is a clear abuse of the process of law.”
The Court continued: “In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed with costs of ₹2,00,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.”
The petitioner appeared in person. Advocates Abhinav Singh and Antara Mishra represented the GNCTD, while Advocate Anil Dutt appeared for the respondent society.
Background
The petitioner sought an inquiry into the affairs of the respondent society and cancellation of its registration. The Court noted that the petition represented another attempt to revive issues that had already been decided.
Several earlier writ petitions concerning the society had been disposed of through a common judgment. In that judgment, the Court had specifically declined to direct the Registrar of Societies to conduct an inquiry into the society’s affairs or cancel its registration. The petitioner’s appeal against that decision was also dismissed.
The petitioner thereafter instituted further proceedings that were dismissed. In one such order, a coordinate Bench recorded that he had already initiated four writ petitions and one contempt petition. It found that the relief sought in the later petition overlapped with the relief adjudicated earlier and reminded the petitioner of his obligation to disclose the previous proceedings.
The coordinate Bench dismissed that petition because the controversy had already been adjudicated and because the petitioner had suppressed material facts. Although it considered imposing costs, it refrained from doing so because the petitioner was appearing in person.
The petitioner subsequently filed another writ petition concerning an event proposed to be held at the respondent society’s premises. In that matter, the Court prima facie indicated that costs would be imposed and directed him to deposit ₹50,000 to secure costs. That petition remained pending when the present proceedings were instituted.
In the present case, the petitioner relied on a fresh representation seeking an inquiry into the society’s affairs and cancellation of its registration. The representation also raised the society’s change of name. The Court found that these were substantially the same matters raised in the earlier proceedings.
Court’s Observations
Earlier Adjudication And Proceedings Had To Be Disclosed
The Court referred to the coordinate Bench’s earlier finding that the petitioner was required to disclose the previous cases instituted by him, particularly when the reliefs overlapped. The earlier petition had been rejected on its merits and for suppression of material facts.
The coordinate Bench had observed: “The petitioner was duty-bound to disclose the earlier proceedings, which were carried out at his instance.”
Despite that warning, the petitioner stated in the present petition that he had not filed any similar matter. The Court found that he had failed to disclose earlier petitions seeking essentially the same relief.
Fresh Representation Could Not Revive Settled Relief
The Court found that the petitioner’s grievance had remained unchanged throughout the litigation. His earlier petitions sought an inquiry by the Registrar of Societies, cancellation of the society’s registration and a declaration concerning its change of name. His fresh representation repeated those grounds and requests.
The Court observed: “What the petitioner earlier sought directly from this Court, he now seeks through a representation.”
The Court therefore rejected the attempt to obtain through an administrative representation the same relief that had already been refused in judicial proceedings.
Repeated Proceedings Constituted Abuse Of Process
The Court noted that earlier dismissals, the coordinate Bench’s warning and the leniency previously shown to the petitioner had not deterred him from repeatedly approaching the Court for substantially the same relief.
It stated: “The conduct of the petitioner shows that he is a serial chronic litigant. Despite the dismissal of his earlier petitions, the observations of the Coordinate Bench and the leniency shown to him, the petitioner has continued to approach this Court, time and again, seeking substantially the same relief. Such conduct cannot be countenanced.”
The Court held that such repetitive proceedings consumed judicial time that could otherwise be devoted to genuine litigants and compelled the respondents to repeatedly defend issues that had already been settled.
Future Listing Made Conditional On Payment Of Costs
Apart from dismissing the petition and imposing costs, the Court restricted the listing of further cases filed by the petitioner until he complied with the costs order.
The Court directed: “The Registry is directed not to list any other case filed by the petitioner in future, unless the aforesaid costs are deposited.”
Conclusion
The Court dismissed the petition as an abuse of the process of law and directed the petitioner to deposit ₹2 lakh with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. It further directed the Registry not to list any future case filed by him unless the costs were deposited.
The pending application was also disposed of.
Cause Title: Satya Prakash Ravidas v. The SDM/Registrar of Societies and Another
