Sanjeev Gupta v. The Secretary General, Supreme Court, Delhi
$~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9346/2024 SANJEEV GUPTA .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Petitioner (inPerson).
versus THE SECRETARY GENERAL, SUPREME COURT, DELHI .....Respondent Through:
None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 10.07.2024 1.
The present petition has been filed to direct the Respondent to facilitate Petitioner's access to legal remedy as per the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.1 2.
Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, the Petitioner in-person, presents the following facts and contentions:
2.1.
On 01st July, 2022, Petitioner filed an e-petition through Diary No. 19764 of 2022 challenging the order dated 15th June, 2022. He asserts that defects were raised which were cleared within two days after several urgency letters were filed. Thereafter, the said matter was listed when the Petitioner was in jail, resulting in a dismissal. Accordingly, he applied for restoration of the said e-petition which was e-filed through diary No. 5563 1 "the Rules"
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
of 2024. Subsequently, defects in the said restoration petition were raised by the Registry, which were then responded to on 19th February, 2024. 2.2.
It is the grievance of the Petitioner that despite several representations made by all modes, and several visits to the Registry, his petition filed through diary No. 5563 of 2024 has not been listed. He, therefore, alleges that Rule 6 of Order VIII of the Rules have not been complied with by the Respondent.
2.3.
In light of the above, the Petitioner seeks the following prayers: "a) Issue writ of mandamus & other appropriate nature to the Respondent to facilitate access to legal remedy for listing of fresh cases for Dy 5563 of 2024 of applicant and also in all fresh petitions as per rule 6 order VIII of SCR 2013 framed u/a 145 of the constitution duly approved by the President of India in letter and true spirit to ensure timely access to judicial remedy which is heat and soul of the constitution." 3.
The Court has patiently heard Mr. Gupta, however, remains unconvinced with the submissions advanced by him. The Rules prescribe the manner for filing and listing of petitions before the Supreme Court. These Rules are supplemented by guidelines and practice directions issued under the Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, 2017, published by the Supreme Court. These guidelines also provide a mechanism for listing of the petitions and mentioning of the matters before the Registrar, in case the matter is not being listed by the Registry, once the defects are cured.
4.
The Petitioner also has the remedy of making a mention before the Registrar Supreme Court, Registrar (J-I) and the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for listing of urgent matters.
5.
Thus, there are sufficient legal remedies available to the Petitioner in case his petition is not being listed, as alleged. In view of the above, the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950.
6.
In light of the above, the present petition is dismissed. SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 10, 2024/as The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.