Read Time: 04 minutes

The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by one Ramesh Chander Diwan with cost of Rs. 20,000/- noting that after the petitioner's request for adjournment was accepted by the High Court, the same order could not be faulted by the petitioner by filing a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

A bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh noted that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was preferred not on any other fact or even the fact that the impugned order was wrongly recorded.

It was found that the petitioner had relied on the fact that the High Court had erred in mechanically adjourning the matter for three months without issuing notice to the respondent, and that the long adjournment without any interim protection would take away the petitioner’s right to approach a Higher Court.

"We do not know why the adjournment was requested - whether the counsel was not ready or whether there were lack of material instructions from the petitioner to the counsel!", remarked the Bench.

The Bench went on to say that the fact remained that the Judge only obliged the counsel for the petitioner by accepting the request for adjournment and yet the order was sought to be faulted by the petitioner.

"If this is not a misuse of process of law, one can say little else. This Court is not a walk in place only because Chandigarh happens to be in the proximity to Delhi," said the Court.

With the view that the petitioner must pay for wastage of judicial time, the Court dismissed the petition with costs which are to be deposited with the Supreme Court Group “C" (Non-Clerical) Employees Welfare Association within four weeks.

Cause Title: Ramesh Chander Diwan vs Central Bureau of Investigation