Court highlights alternative remedies and cautions petitioner on maintaining courtroom decorum
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Dayashankar Pandey, citing the petition's vagueness and the absence of material evidence. The court noted that Pandey sought multiple reliefs, including an impartial investigation and recovery of an alleged embezzled amount exceeding Rs. 200 crore from Maruti Suzuki India Limited. However, the court found the petition unsupported by any substantial documentation.
The petitioner, representing himself, alleged that the embezzlement exposure led to threats and physical attacks on his family, resulting in severe injuries and hardships. Despite these claims, the court observed that Pandey failed to provide any written complaints or evidence to substantiate his allegations. The court also criticized Pandey for his conduct during a previous hearing, where he displayed a miscarried fetus in the courtroom, calling it an act that lowered the court's dignity and decorum.
Justice Himanshu Joshi, presiding over the case, emphasized that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked based on vague and unsubstantiated claims. The court directed Pandey to avail statutory remedies, such as approaching a jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grievances related to police inaction.
The court further referenced the Supreme Court's stance in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., urging the discouragement of direct High Court petitions when alternative remedies exist. Justice Joshi highlighted the repeated filings by Pandey on the same issues, labeling them as vexatious and speculative litigations that abuse the legal process and waste the court's time.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, allowing Pandey the liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies. It also sternly warned him against future conduct that disrupts courtroom decorum, emphasizing that such actions are impermissible and subject to legal consequences.
Bottom Line:
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking reliefs for impartial investigation, compensation, and recovery of alleged embezzled amount dismissed on grounds of being vague, unsupported by material particulars, and repeated invocation of writ jurisdiction without pursuing statutory remedies.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
