PANDURANG VITHAL KEVNEversusBHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR.

                  [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2113 : 2024 INSC 1051

                        Pandurang Vithal Kevne
                                  v.
                  Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
             (Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 56230 of 2024)
                                 20 December 2024
                [J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.]


                              Issue for Consideration
          Whether the High Court rightly disallowed Petitioner’s application
          for condonation of delay and rejected the second review petition
          in light of Petitioner’s repeated and frivolous litigation.

                                     Headnotes†
          Condemnation of unscrupulous litigation – Jumping from one
          forum to another despite the issue being well-settled through
          reasoned orders – A stark example of blatant misuse and abuse
          of the judicial process – Forum shopping by filing repetitive and
          meritless pleas in Supreme Court and High Court – Repetitive
          and meritless pleas deliberately delays proceedings – Wastes
          the court’s valuable time and resources and hinders efficient
          addressal of genuine and timely claims:
          Held: The Petitioner repeatedly filed numerous meritless petitions,
          appeals and motions in multiple legal and administrative forums,
          even though his grievances had been well-settled through
          reasoned orders – The right to access the courts is a cornerstone
          of democracy, however, the right is not absolute and must be
          exercised responsibly – The Petitioner’s relentless and frivolous
          litigation spree has wasted the Court’s valuable time and resources,
          and is one of the reasons which results in choking the dockets in
          courts – Litigants engaging in forum shopping deliberately delay
          proceedings, eroding the very foundation of the legal system.
          [Paras 2-3, 17-18]

          Consequences of filing frivolous appeals and petitions –
          Deterrence against such appeals and petitions by imposition
          of costs – Unscrupulous litigants polluting the stream of
          justice, putting hurdles in its dispensation to others – Heavy

*Author
2114                                                           [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


    cost on Petitioner a clear message to others for not daring to
    play with the Judicial System – Duty of Courts to curb such
    type of litigation:
    Held: Condemning litigants who use the justice system for their
    benefit and attempt to pollute the streams of justice, this Court
    discussed raising deterrence against such frivolous pleas by imposing
    costs on the litigating parties – Based on previous well-reasoned
    orders of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, the
    Special Leave Petition was dismissed as the Supreme Court found
    no merit in the Petition – Therefore, the application for condonation
    of delay was also dismissed – A cost of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One
    Lakh) was imposed on the Petitioner to give a clear message to
    unscrupulous litigants who are polluting the stream of justice and
    putting hurdles in its dispensation to others – It is the duty of the
    Courts at different levels to curb such type of litigation that chokes
    the justice system resulting in delays in decision of other cases.
    [Paras 19-23]

                               Case Law Cited
    Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, 2014 INSC 367 : [2014]
    12 SCR 573; Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2009 INSC
    1277 : [2009] 16 SCR 111; K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of
    India & Ors., W.P. (C) Diary No(s). 27458/2022 decided on
    01.05.2023 – relied upon.

                              List of Keywords
    Special Leave Petition; Second Review Petition; Condonation
    of delay; Industrial dispute; Frivolous litigation; Forum shopping;
    Meritless pleas; Imposition of costs; Blatant misuse of judicial process.

                             Case Arising From
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil)
    Diary No. 56230 of 2024
    From the Judgment and Order dated 11.06.2024 of the High Court
    of Judicature at Bombay in IA No. 2748 of 2021 in Review Petition
    (L) No. 7558 of 2021

                         Appearances for Parties
    Randhir Kumar Ojha, Adv. for the Petitioner.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                       2115

     Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.


                      Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                         Order

      Rajesh Bindal, J.

1.    The present Special Leave Petition has been filed impugning the
      order dated 11.06.2024 vide which the High Court1 was pleased to
      disallow the petitioner’s Application for condonation of delay2 and
      rejected the Second Review Petition.3
2.    This Special Leave Petition before us is yet another stark example of
      the blatant misuse and abuse of the judicial process. The petitioner,
      seemingly blinded by his own sense of grievance, has embarked on
      a relentless and frivolous litigation spree, dragging this Court and
      the High Court through multiple meritless review petitions, appeals,
      and motions, all stemming from his well-reasoned removal from
      service. This is one of the reasons which results in choking the
      dockets in courts.
3.    Before delving into the specifics of this case, it is imperative to
      underscore that the right to access the courts is a cornerstone of our
      democracy. However, this right is not absolute and must be exercised
      responsibly. When litigants, like the petitioner before us, engage in
      forum shopping, file repetitive and meritless pleas, and deliberately
      delay proceedings, they erode the very foundation of our legal system.
4.    Now, turning to the facts of this case in brief, as is evident from the
      material on record, the petitioner was employed as an Examiner with
      the respondent No. 1 organization since 1977. In December 1997,
      respondent No. 1 issued him a charge sheet for misconduct due to his
      frequent and prolonged absence from duty, without prior permission
      or intimation. Following a departmental inquiry, the petitioner was
      found guilty and was removed from service w.e.f. 14.07.2000. His
      statutory appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority. The
      petitioner then raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the
      Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) at Mumbai.


1    High Court of Bombay, Maharashtra
2    I.A. No. 2748 of 2021
3    R. P. No. 7558 of 2021
2116                                                      [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports



5.   On 22.12.2006, the CGIT passed a final award upholding the
     petitioner’s removal from service. It ruled that the petitioner’s
     absences qualified as misconduct as these were “habitual” and
     without prior permission. Even if respondent No. 1 later regularized his
     absences, it did not change the fact that he had been absent without
     permission. The CGIT also noted that he did not seem interested in
     adhering to rules and regulations or exhibiting devotion to his duty.
     The respondent No. 1 also got a police investigation done after the
     domestic enquiry was initiated, which revealed that the petitioner
     was running a business in the name of his wife, at his native place
     while being employed under respondent No. 1. As the petitioner
     raised the defence of illness, the respondent No. 1 directed him to
     undergo a medical examination. He was declared medically fit to
     resume duty vide Medical Certificate dated 06.10.1997. However,
     he did not report for work until 27.01.1998. Further, he promptly took
     two days of leave and proceeded to be absent again for two months.
6.   The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 2584 of 2007, before the High
     Court seeking to challenge the CGIT’s award. The High Court passed
     a well-reasoned order and upheld the CGIT’s award dated 22.12.2009.
     The High Court found that the CGIT was correct in upholding the
     petitioner’s removal from service, considering his prolonged and
     frequent unauthorized absence, his lack of interest in work, and the
     fact that he was running a private business while being employed
     with respondent No. 1. The Court held that the petitioner’s actions
     clearly demonstrated that he was not interested in job and was not
     a suitable employee for respondent No. 1.
7.   On 25.01.2010, the petitioner filed Review Petition No. 6 of 2010,
     praying for review of judgment dated 05.12.2009 passed in Writ
     Petition No. 2584 of 2007. The Court dismissed the review petition,
     holding that there were no error apparent on the face of the record.
8.   Challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner filed Special Leave
     Petition (Civil) Nos. 19572-19573 of 2010. This Court dismissed both
     petitions, finding no merit therein.
9.   Dissatisfied with the order, the petitioner on 04.10.2012, filed an
     application to the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India,
     seeking an inquiry against the Presiding Officer of the CGIT, Mumbai
     and the two High Court judges who had adjudicated his case, including
     the then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                      2117

    Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.



10. A perusal of the records shows that the Review Petition No. 6 of
    2010 was listed again in the year 2015, despite being dismissed
    already on 25.01.2010. The listing records of the case were also
    tallied with the web portal of the High Court and the same discrepancy
    was found. The Review Petition No. 6 of 2010 once again came to
    be dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2015. As there is nothing on
    record we are not going in further details.
11. In an attempt to revive his case, the petitioner filed Notice of Motion
    No. 71 of 2015, seeking the court’s permission to file a second review
    petition despite delay. The High Court on 05.08.2015, dismissed
    the motion, reasoning that even if the delay is condoned, a second
    review petition would not be legally permissible.
12. Unrelenting, the petitioner filed another Notice of Motion No. 369 of
    2015, seeking to challenge the High Court’s order dated 31.03.2015,
    which had effectively closed the doors on his review petition. The
    High Court vide order dated 18.11.2015 dismissed this motion as
    well, holding that it was not maintainable.
13. Once again, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4170
    of 2016 before this Court, challenging aforesaid order of the High
    Court. This Court dismissed the SLP on 18.04.2016, declining to
    intervene in the matter.
14. At every stage the petitioner failed. Initial findings of misconduct and
    the legitimacy of his dismissal confirmed. After exhausting his legal
    remedies, the petitioner filed complaints alleging corruption against
    the judges who decided his case to several authorities including
    Hon’ble the President of India on 13.02.2012, Hon’ble the Prime
    Minister of India on 18.12.2017 and 03.01.2018, and Hon’ble the
    Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court on 19.01.2021.
15. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court responded to
    the petitioner’s letter on 23.02.2021, stating that “without a proper
    review petition, nothing can be done to reopen the issues decided.”
    The petitioner seized upon this administrative note as a green light
    to re-litigate his case. In March 2021, the petitioner, filed a Second
    Review Petition (No. 7558 of 2021) before the High Court along with
    an application for condonation of delay.4 The High Court, clearly


4   I.A. No. 2748 of 2021
2118                                                           [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


     exasperated by the petitioner’s persistent and frivolous attempts
     to revive a long-settled matter, heard the Interim Application and
     decided the same vide the impugned order dated 11.06.2024. The
     High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, holding
     that it was absolutely baseless and not maintainable in law. It further
     emphasized the lack of merit in condoning the colossal and inordinate
     delay of 4088 days (11 years and two months) in reviewing an order
     dated 05.12.2009. While disposing of the Second Review Petition
     (No. 7558 of 2021), the High Court observed that:
            “7.…Therefore, instead of adding anything more, we
            only observe that, this Application is nothing but an
            unscrupulous idea and attempt to take disadvantage
            of the technical endorsement of the Hon’ble the Chief
            Justice. Secondly, as one can easily perceive, the sheer
            frustration on account of losing the litigation at every stage
            prompted the Applicant to file this Application coupled with
            the Review Petition. Thirdly, the Review Petition intended
            to be filed based on the relief in this Application itself, is
            wholly misconceived.”
16. Despite the above order, the petitioner did not sit quiet. Challenging
    the aforesaid order of the High Court, the petitioner has filed the
    present Special Leave Petition before this Court.
17. As discussed, the petitioner has jumped from one forum to another,
    both legal and administrative, agitating his grievance repeatedly,
    despite the same being well-settled through reasoned orders. The
    forum shopping exercise of the petitioner is summarized in the table
    hereinbelow:

        Date           Proceedings               Decision

        14.07.2000     Dismissal Order passed    Competent Authority removed
                       by respondent No. 1       the petitioner from service for
                                                 misconduct due to frequent
                                                 and prolonged absence from
                                                 duty without prior permission
                                                 or intimation.

        –              Statutory Appeal          Appellate Authority dismissed
                                                 the appeal filed by the petitioner,
                                                 finding no merits therein.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                                   2119

   Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.



      22.12.2006     CGIT-12 of 2004 before      Passed an Award upholding
                     CGIT, Mumbai                the petitioner’s removal from
                                                 service.

      05.12.2009     W.P. (C) No. 2584 of 2007   Upheld the CGIT’s Award,
                     before the High Court of    removing the petitioner from
                     Bombay                      service.

      25.01.2010     R.P. No. 6 of 2010 before   Dismissed the review petition
                     the High Court              finding no error on the face of
                                                 the record.

      30.07.2010     SLP (C) Nos. 19572-         Dismissed both SLPs challenging
                     19573 of 2010 before        orders dated 05.12.2009 and
                     the Supreme Court           25.01.2010.

      04.10.2012     Complaint to the Ministry   The petitioner sought an inquiry
                     of Law and Justice,         against the Presiding Officer
                     Government of India.        of the CGIT, Mumbai, and the
                                                 two High Court judges who had
                                                 adjudicated his case.

      31.03.2015     R.P. No. 6 of 2010 (Re-     Dismissed the Review Petition
                     listed) before the High     once again stating that the
                     Court                       dismissal of the petitioner’s
                                                 SLPs had rendered the review
                                                 petition infructuous.

      05.08.2015     Notice of Motion No. 71     The petitioner sought permission
                     of 2015 before the High     to file another review petition.
                     Court                       High Court dismissed the
                                                 motion, reasoning that a Second
                                                 Review Petition would not be
                                                 legally permissible.

      18.11.2015     Notice of Motion No. 369    The petitioner sought permission
                     of 2015 before the High     to challenge the order dated
                     Court                       31.03.2015. Dismissed this
                                                 motion, stating that it was not
                                                 maintainable.

      18.04.2016     SLP (C) No. 4170 of 2016    Dismissed the SLP challenging
                     before the Supreme Court    o r d e r d a t e d 1 8 . 11 . 2 0 1 5 ,
                                                 declining to intervene in the
                                                 matter.
2120                                                              [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports



        13.02.2012        Complaint to Office of
                          Hon’ble the President of
                          India                      The petitioner alleged corruption
        18.12.2017 &      Complaint to Hon’ble       against the judges who had
        03.01.2018        Prime Minister’s Office    decided his case.

        19.01.2021        Complaint to Hon’ble the
                          Chief Justice of Bombay
                          High Court

        11.06.2024        Second R.P. No. 7558 of    High Court dismissed the
                          2021 along with I.A. No.   application for condonation of
                          2748 of 2021 before the    delay and the Second Review
                          High Court.                Petition, holding that it was not
                                                     maintainable in law.
                                 [Impugned Order]




18. The petitioner’s repeated and frivolous litigation has wasted the court’s
    valuable time and resources. It is in interest of justice that genuine
    and timely claims are addressed efficiently, without being hindered
    by such unscrupulous litigation. We may refer here an observation
    given by this Court in Subrata Roy Sahara Vs Union of India5:
            “150. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with
            frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved,
            to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession, towards
            senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in
            mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent
            sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and
            senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods
            of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is
            pending, without any fault on his part.”
19. This Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others6,
    has strongly condemned litigants who use the justice system for
    their benefit and thereby attempt to pollute the streams of justice. It
    was observed as under:



5   2014 INSC 367 : (2014) 8 SCC 470
6   2009 INSC 1277 : (2010) 2 SCC 114
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                             2121

    Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.


             “1. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped
             up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any
             respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood
             and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to
             meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants,
             the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and
             it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts
             to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure
             fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any
             relief, interim or final.”
20. Time and again, this Court has raised deterrence against frivolous
    appeals and petitions by imposition of costs on the litigating parties.
    This court in the case of K.C. Tharakan Vs State Bank of India &
    Ors.7 held the following:
             “No legal system can have a scenario where a person
             keeps on raking up the issue again and again once it is
             resolved at highest level. This is complete wastage of
             judicial time. We, thus, dismiss this petition with costs,
             though we limit the amount of costs considering the
             petitioner is a dismissed person. The writ petition is
             dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with
             the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Welfare Fund
             to be utilized for the SCBA library.”
21. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in this Special
    Leave Petition, hence, the same is dismissed. As there is no merit in
    the petition, we don’t deem it appropriate to even condone the delay.
    Hence, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed.
22. Considering that precious time of this Court and the High Court was
    wasted by the petitioner, in our opinion the petitioner deserves to be
    burdened with heavy cost, to give clear message to the unscrupulous
    litigants like the petitioner for not daring to play with the Judicial
    System. Such type of litigants are not only polluting the stream of
    justice but putting hurdles in its dispensation to others. The precious
    judicial time which the petitioner has wasted, could very well be used
    for taking up the cases of other litigants who are waiting for justice.


7   Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 27458/2022 decided on 01.05.2023.
2122                                                            [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     In fact these types of litigants are choking the system of the court,
     which is resulting in delays in decision of other cases. It is also the
     duty of the Courts at different levels to curb such type of litigation
     so that more time is available for dealing with genuine litigation.
23. In the light of facts and circumstances as aforesaid, we are inclined
    to impose a cost of ₹ 1,00,000 /- (Rupees One Lakh) against the
    petitioner to be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services
    Authority within four weeks. On failure, recovery be effected from
    the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.
24. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

     Result of the Case: S
                          pecial Leave Petition dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankitesh Ojha, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)