Sukhpal Singh v. Amit Panchal, Ias And ORS.
!!!"#$#$%&"'
( !
)
!
!!!"*+%&,"&#*
-#"
%.
"*"'/"
!!
'%&%1&2", & !!
+3%-,", %&
!!
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
!
"
# $ %" & & &
) !
'
(
)
* !
! " !#$%&$'$$( " !
#)*$ $'$$ !+ ),#))#$'$- $'$& &! ) + (
,
)
)
-
)
* ! .
/
++ 01 +0+2 )
#
3 %
) 4
%
3 )
)
* ! /
)
)
,
"
)
6 )
* !
7
)
) 8
)
)
* !
!
8
,
"
) #
)
)
)
- ) )
:'
)
* !
! 8 6
)
) 6
/
)
;
)
* !
! " !#$%&$'$$( " !#)*$$'$$+ " !#,$. $'$$+ /),#))#$'$-! $'$& &! ) (
<
%'#
!" #$ % %
%
#$ % % %% #
%#& %
#
4 %)#
%
" # 0#123 4 # '
%
( ) %
% # # *
% #+#
, # # * ( %
# %# *%
-
%
"
+ .
-
"
+ . # * "
+.
# %# *
/ #
# # %
# # , #
#
- 0 %# 1%
2 %
% # 5#"4 10674038 # *
% # # *
# #93061 4 # 3
#
# *
/ # 0 #
0 #
4
#
#
% -
% #
# 0 1""12:32 19 0""466024 0 ;:
3 306 :23 19 274 93061 4# # $ %
%
( #*
%# #
% %
( #5 (
5 %
-
#
# # 6
# 4# "1 44 38 19 163231 # *
% 4
%
% #7
% # # *
.
"
# %$# '
# %,#
%
# %-#*
% "
6
# %&#*8 9:
;
<
"
3* 8 =
& " #
=%
+ .
" # %*# 6 <
%
% -.
% .#8#
< & "#3# #' 8 - "
6 . # '
#> - #8 # %<# $ - 4 - ' - :
"
%
# %.#$ * . =
<%
- # %%# -#?
=
:'
3
)
* ! ) 6
7
8 6 )
)
( 3 ! - -
6 ) 8 )
* !
:
/
#
3 %
) 4
%
++ 01 +0+2 (
<
&#* % % #* %
% =
# *# * % % = 8 #
@ #@!#!@!A#6
% . = 8 5
# - B #B
B
% % %
@ #@!#!@!A 8/4 A 4* %
8/4 A #
<# *
, =%4
# .# *
# :
1 %
%
. 6-= 8 # *
C #8 < :
1
# 2#@!#!@!A , -
= %
%
8 2#@!#!@!A . #8 < :
1
@ #@!#!@!A 8/4A64* %
8/4A6# %# *
% = 8 % '# C@
#@!#!@!A %
% #&% #
)'# * % '# C! D#@!#!@!A
# = = 8 %
#&%
# *
%
%
- # - B # ))# * % %
% '# 2 !C#@!#!@!A , + +% 5 B
% # )$# * %
% . 6-'# (= 8 '#2
:
1 !@@E
= -#* # ),#* . 6-9.6;
!@
, #*:
1 #
% %
". 6-.6; 8/4A"4* %
8/4A"# )-#* % ,
% #", %
= # )&#*
## + 8 +%
< EE < 8 < EE #*+ +% 5 B
%
'#D@D !@#@2#!@!A '# (@ #@2#!@!A % 6 - +% 5 '
+ 8 +% <
!A#@A#!@!( = 8 #3
6 - +% 5 '
= 8
4
= 4 = = *
%
# %
!A#@A#!@!(
%
#.% % 2! #
%
@!#@ #!@!A
EE
!A#@A#!@!( = 8 #*
%
% , 4<
-
<
% " 5
@!#@ #!@!A 84A+4* %
84A+# )*# * %
= 1 . !@ ! !@!!
, - = # %
!@!(
< ,
#*
= 1 84A1
4 <
84A># )<# * 9
. ; 7 .
*7 %
8
"85 6 8 +'# 8@@29 /C D# E,##; 8@@ 9 / ! #EA ,# #; F
EA@#@D2,##9C D# E! #EA ,##;#* , #*
"8 % % 7
8 % 84A=#?
'0
6
)
-
,
"
) (
)
$ >
3 "
) ?/(?
) 6
''
( !
)
)
)
* !
!
)
)
)
3
(
)
) ) 3 )
* ! ) 3 6 6
:'
8 6
)
'+
(
)
@/#
)
3 6 ) ! )
)
'.
(
* !
)
)
6 ) (
* 6 ! ) 3 )
A B
) !
) 6
)
'1
/
( 6 )
)
) ) '9.
Similar matter has already been dealt with by this Court in COCP-3579-2025 decided on 24.07.2025 titled as "Payal Chaudhary V/s KAP Sinha IAS and others", while placing reliance on the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Dalip Singh V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114, Subrata Roy Sahara V/s Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470 and K.C. Tharakan V/s State Bank of India & Ors. Passed in Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).27458/2022". The relevant paragraphs of Payal Chaudhary (supra) are reproduced as under:- "9.
It is evident that the petitioner has engaged in what can only be described as a frivolous and vexatious litigation spree, seemingly driven by a misplaced sense of grievance. Such conduct constitutes a gross abuse of the judicial process and contributes significantly to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court. The tendency of litigants to misuse the judicial forum by engaging in forum shopping, filing repetitive and meritless petitions, and adopting dilatory tactics undermines the very foundation of our legal system and clogs the administration of justice.
10.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114, has cautioned against this emerging category of unscrupulous litigants who, devoid of respect for truth, resort to falsehood and unethical practices in their pursuit of relief. The Supreme Court emphatically held that such litigants, who seek to pollute the stream of justice or who dare to touch the fountain of justice with unclean hands, are not entitled to any relief, interim or
5 final. Relevant extracts of the same is reproduce as under:- "In the 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. Courts have evolved new principles to curb such abuse, and it is now well established that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."
11. The petitioner's conduct in instituting frivolous litigation has resulted in a gross misuse of the judicial process, thereby squandering the valuable time and resources of this Court. It is imperative, in the interest of justice, that bona fide and timely claims are adjudicated expeditiously, without being impeded by vexatious and unscrupulous litigation. At this juncture, reference may be made to the pertinent observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470, wherein the Court lamented the pervasive malaise of frivolous litigation afflicting the Indian judicial system. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "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 illconsidered 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."
12.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the need to deter frivolous appeals and petitions by imposing exemplary costs on the litigating parties. In Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 27458/2022 titled as K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of India & Ors. decided on 01.05.2023, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"No legal system can permit a situation wherein a party repeatedly agitates the same issue after it has been conclusively adjudicated by the highest judicial forum. Such conduct amounts to a gross misuse of the judicial process and results in a significant waste of valuable judicial time. Accordingly, the present writ petition is
6 dismissed with costs. However, taking into consideration that the petitioner is a dismissed employee, we deem it appropriate to impose a nominal cost. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at ₹10,000/-, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates-onRecord Welfare Fund, to be utilized for the benefit of the SCBA Library."
'2
)
!
3
)
4 )
)
,
( ) )
)
)
)
';
( !
!
3
)
)
) '= ( ! )
/
)
6
)
)
7 ':
!- ) )
!
6
) +0
) #*+''+'''/=
>6 ? !+
) -
(
3
)
+'
/
)
) ++
CD
)
!!
$ - / G' $ / G'