An alleged incident of unequal treatment by the registrywas narrated by Judicial Magistrate SyedullahKhaleelullah Khan which stated that he had filed a writ petition in February 2016 to reconsider a judgment titled All India Judges Associations V. Union of India &Ors (2002) 4 SCC 247 & amend the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008.
A notice was issued on the petition and it was tagged with similar petitions. However, after the petition was tagged with similar ones, it was dismissed on February 19, 2020, the review for which was dismissed on 5th August.
A Petition was then filed by the petitioner through e-filing and 9 defects were pointed out by the Registry. These defects were cured on the same day. But even after the removal of these defects and constantly reaching out to the registry regarding the registration of his petition, the same was not done.
In this context, it was averred that: On 17.10.2020, Section X has informed the petitioner by an e-mail vide PID: 103773/2020 that he has removed some defects by filing documents on 03.10.2020. It has been stated to the petitioner that he has given an explanation for not removing defect Nos. 3&4 but the petitioner was informed to remove the following defects-
- Certificate of Senior Advocate is required to be filed.
- A certificate by petitioner in person is also required to be filed.
- Refiled Curative petition and application is unsigned.
The acts of the Registry in relation to the Curative Petition of the petitioner have been alleged that they were discriminatory, irrational, and unreasonable. It was also alleged that the Registry had deliberately not scrutinized the Curative Petition of the petitioner for a period of 22 days. It is averred that this act of the registry is discriminatory and thus illegal.
The plea has also laid down a table laying down 19 petitions of which defects were cured and they were listed by the Registry.
Unfortunately, such is not the case. Someone has said that words may lie but Actions will always tell the truth. History shows that not only the Litigants and Lawyers have questioned the Registry but at times this Honble Court has pulled up the Registry for its omission and commission. The same has been reported by Online Law Journals from time to time, the judicial officer added that conduct of the registry should be such that there shall not be any room for suspicion.
The petitioner states that the requirement of filing a Certificate issued by a designated Senior Advocate should be stuck down because this practice has only increased the costs of litigation in view of the petitioner.
A study of the fate of the Curative Petitions filed in this Honble Court along with such certificate would show that it has become empty formality and that the time has come to have a fresh look and to reconsider the requirement if filing such certificate along with the Curative Petition.
The pleas also seek issuance of appropriate directions for taking action against erring officers for allegedly giving unequal treatment to the equals and for violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
