Ashim Deb And ANR v. Smt Judge Madhuri Avinash Anand And ORS

Digitally signed by SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN PATHAN Date:

2024.04.19 17:28:10 +0530 SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN PATHAN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3947 OF 2023 Ashim Deb & Anr.

... Petitioners

Versus

Judge Madhuri Avinash Anand & Ors.

... Respondents Mr. Ashim Deb, the Petitioner No.1 appears in-person Mrs. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent No.6-State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

MONDAY, 15 th APRIL 2024 P.C :

At the outset, we may note that the petitioner No.1 insisted on arguing in-person, despite the Committee's report that he was not capable of arguing in-person. We also offered Legal Aid to the said petitioner, however, he refused and insisted that he will argue his matter in-person. Accordingly, we heard the petitioner No.1 in-person.

1/3

By the present interim application, the following substantive reliefs are sought :

"a.

To issue a WRIT in the nature of Mandamus, directing Respondent No. 4 to form a Disciplinary Committee to conduct a time-bound inquiry on the issue of whether Respondent No. 1 and 2 have been actuated by an oblique motive or corrupt practice to deal the pending litigation against the petitioner and furnish report before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. b) Forthwith withhold all the judicial assignments assigned to Respondent No. 1 and 2 to stop polluting the institution of justice, in large public interest." The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are the judicial officers against whom the petitioner seeks action and respondent No.4 is the Register General of this High Court. The petitioner No.1, who appears in-person, states that he has already initiated complaints against the said Officers on the administrative side and that the same are pending on the administrative side.

2/3

Since the petitioner has already taken steps on the administrative side and even otherwise, we cannot entertain the petition as filed by the petitioner seeking the aforesaid reliefs on the judicial side.

Considering the aforesaid, there is no merit in the petition seeking action against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. We cannot direct any action to be taken against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the judicial side.

Considering the aforesaid, there is no merit in the petition. Petition stands dismissed.

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

3/3