Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

AJIT PRASAD GUPTA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Decided
10 July 1997
Judges listed
A.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 258
Also cited as
  • (1997) 6 SCC 279 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This case has been called even after the list is revised, but nobody appears.

p. 258, margin E

A perusal of the writ petition shows that filing of this petition is a total abuse of the process of this Court. The petitioner, whose services were terminated on 5.1.1972, questioned the order of termination through writ petition No. 9484/74, which was dismissed by the High Court on 23.8.1974. He allowed that order to acquire finality and later on filed a representation against termination of his services to the State which was also dismissed on 16.9.1975. Undeterred, he once again questioned the order of termination by filing a petition before the U .P. Public Service Tribunal. That petition came to be dismissed on 4.4.1979. The petitioner filed yet another writ petition No. 4536/79, for the same cause which was dismissed by the High Court on 16.8.1979. A review petition against that order was dismissed on 16.1.1980 and an application under Article 133 of the Constitution for a certificate of fitness seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed by the High Court on 26.3.1980. The petitioner filed special leave petition No. 536/81 which came to be dismissed by this Court on 13.2.1981. The petitioner has now filed yet another writ petition putting the same termination order in issue. We take a serious view of the matter and condemn this practice of filing petition after petition. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on court time and public money in order to get the affair settled in the manner he wishes. Finality of judicial proceedings must .be accepted at some stage. We cannot allow the process of the court to be abused in the manner it has been done by the petitioner in this case. We dismiss this writ petition with Rs. 5,000 as costs. The costs shall be deposited with the Registry, within eight weeks, in the account of Supreme Court Legal Services Authority. T.N.A Petition dismissed.

pp. 258–259, margin F