(Jagdish Singh Khehar, C.J. and D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
Rashid Ali Saudagar _________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Justice Madan B. Lokur & Ors. _____________________ Respondent(s)
Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) D. No(s). 757/2016 in Crl. M.P. No. 486 of 2017 in W.P.(CRL.) D. No. 757 of 2016), decided on July 17, 2017
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. We have heard Mr. Rashid Ali Saudagar, who is present in Court in person. He has moved a letter to the Registry of this Court, dated 22.04.2017, seeking recall of the order passed by this Court on 27.03.2017, not only dismissing the appeal preferred by him, but requiring him to pay costs quantified as Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only).
2. We find no justification whatsoever to review our order dated 27.03.2017, nor any justification in exempting the petitioner from depositing the costs, which is the second prayer made in the letter, referred to hereinabove.
3. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we consider it just and appropriate to extend the time for payment of costs imposed vide this Court’s order dated 27.03.2017, by a further period of four weeks, during which time the petitioner shall file proof in the Registry of this Court, depicting the payment of costs. In case, no such proof is filed in the Registry of this Court, the matter shall be re-listed for enforcement of costs.
4. Having perused the further material placed on the record, by the Registry of this Court, including the list of cases filed by Mr. Rashid Ali Saudagar, and the result thereof, we are of the view, that a similar order, as was passed by this Court in Suraz India Trust v. Union of India (Writ Petition(C) No. 880 of 2016, decided on 1.5.2017), deserves to be passed in this matter as well. Accordingly, we hereby restrain the petitioner – Rashid Ali Saudagar, from approaching this Court or any other High Court, for any cause in public interest, hereinafter. In case, any such petition is filed by the petitioner before the Registry of this Court, as a cause in public interest, the same shall not be entertained, and shall be returned to the petitioner. However, it is clarified, that in case the petitioner has any personal/individual grievance, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach a court of competent jurisdiction, in consonance with law.
5. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
———
