Apu Banik v. The Secretary General Supreme Court Of India

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 270/2017 APU BANIK ..... Appellant Through:

Appellant in person with Mr.Rajat Aneja, Amicus Curiae versus THE SECRETARY GENERAL SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

O R D E R

% 28.04.2017 1.

The appellant is present in person. We have heard Mr.Rajat Aneja, learned amicus curiae, who is appointed by us to assist the appellant in prosecution of the present appeal. 2.

It appears that a suit No.2/1987 was filed against the appellant (arrayed as defendant No.3) wherein the plaintiff had sought decree for cancellation of sale deed. The orders passed in these proceedings were contested in various Forums leading upto the filing of an appeal in the Supreme Court which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No. 7948/2004.

3.

The appellant appears to have made an enquiry under the Right to Information Act and claims that he had been informed that there is subject categorization of cases in the Supreme Court and that the

matters relating to allotment, cancellation, fixation of prices of plots/flats are registered under the subject category 1806. It is also submitted that the matters relating to Specific Performance Contract are categorised in the subject category 1805. 4.

The appellant grievances that before the Supreme Court, the appeal which arose out of suit for cancellation of a sale deed was erroneously registered in the subject category 1805 instead of the correct category 1806. On this basis the appellant has challenged the action of the Registry by way of W.P.(C) 6957/2016. This writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 20th October, 2016 contending that the petition was misconceived and that mere registration in the incorrect subject category does not affect the outcome of the appeal in any manner.

5.

The learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 20th October, 2016 has also noted that if the adjudication in the Civil Appeal No.7948/2004, the appellant had filed a Review Petition and thereafter a curative petition which was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to file a curative petition. No fresh curative petition was filed instead the appellant filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. Yet another reason noted by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ petition by the impugned order dated 20th October, 2016 is to the effect that the categorization of the petitions as per different subjects was for the administrative convenience of listing and facilitating the Registry in maintaining the records. Mere categorization of a petition in one or the other subject category does not affect the merits of the matter. We may also note that so far as the

subject matters of category 1806 are concerned, these relate to matters of allotment, cancellation, fixation of prices of plots/flats. Therefore, it appears that the subject matter thereof relates to the allocation of property and not cancellation of the documents as is considered under Specific Relief Act.

6.

The appellant, therefore, may not be wholly correct in contending that the appeal which emanated from the orders passed in W.P.(Civil) 2/87, wherein a decree for cancellation of registered sale deed had been sought, had to be registered under the subject category 1806.

7.

Looked at from any angle, the challenge to the order dated 20th October, 2016 by way of the present appeal is misconceived and is rejected.

8.

The appeal is dismissed.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA, J APRIL 28, 2017/sv