SUKH DEO NARAINversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN
- Citation
- 1984 INSC 125
- Decided
- 20 July 1984
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- O CHINNAPPA REDDY
Holding
The transfer petition is dismissed as it fails to disclose facts or the common questions, constituting a disrespectful and invalid application under Article 139A(1).
Summary
The petitioner filed a transfer petition under Article 139A(1) of the Constitution seeking to move a writ petition pending before the Rajasthan High Court to the Supreme Court, alleging that the High Court petition raised the same questions as a Special Leave Petition (SLP) already pending before this Court. The petition contained no factual background, did not specify the common questions, and was drafted in a casual manner. The Court held that such a petition is disrespectful to the highest court and that the advocate had failed to discharge his duty to both the court and the client. Consequently, the transfer petition was dismissed for being bereft of necessary particulars. The decision underscores the requirement of a detailed statement of facts and questions when invoking Article 139A(1).
Issues considered
- What are the pleading requirements for a transfer petition under Article 139A(1) of the Constitution?
- Can a transfer petition be entertained when it lacks factual details and does not specify the common questions?
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 139A(1)
- Supreme Court Rules, 1966s. Rule 26-A
Subjects
Judgment
199
SUKH DEO NARAIN A
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
July 20, 1984
B
[0. CHIN'1APPA REDDY AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.]
Supreme Court Rules 1966-0rder .-YXXVI-A-In~erted by G.S.R.
1024 dated 19-8·1978-Application~ for transfer under Clause (I) of Article
139·1 of the Constitution-Requirements of i•alid petition.
c
Practice-Drafting and filing petitio11 in casual and careless n1anner-
Whether proper discharge of duty by advocate to court and client.
A petition for withdrawing a writ petition pending in the High Court
to the Supreme Court UIJ.der Article l 39A (1) of the Constitution mention-
ed nothing else except that the writ p~tition pending in the High Court D
raised exactly the sarne questi:ins as those r,dscd in a special leave petition
pending in the Supreme Court. What the questions were and what the
fa~ts of the cases were was not disclosed.
Dismissing the petition,
E
- HELD': It is most discourteous and disrespectful to the highest
court in the country to file such indifferent petitions. The advocate;, is
not discharging his dury either to the court or to the client. [200C]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 344 of F
1983.
Under article !39A of the Constitution of India for transfer
of Writ Petition No. 475 of 1983 pending before the Rajasthan
High Court.
G
D. Bhandari for the Petitioner (Not Present)
B. D. Sharma for the Respondent.
The Order of the court was delivered by
'
H
200 SUPRE"JE COURT REPORTS [J 985) 1 S.C. R.
A CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. This petition is totally bereft of any
statement of facts. It has been drafted and filed in a most casual
and careless manne~. All that is stated in the petition is that th~
Writ Petition pending· in the Rajasthan High Court raises exactly
the same questions as those raised in SLP (Civil) No. 7561/83
pending in th;s Court and the writ petition may, therefore, be trans-
B •
ferrcd to this Court. Nothing else is mentioned. No facts relating
to either case are mentioned. Even the alleged common questions
are not stated. We can only say that it is most discourteous and
disrespectful to the highest court in the country to file such indiffe-
rent petitions. The advocate is not discharging his duty either to
the court or to the client.
c
Transfer petition is dismissed.
D H.S.K. Petition dismissed.
...
•
~···
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.