"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," a bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said.
The Supreme Court today restrained a man, who had earlier filed a criminal petition against two sitting apex court judges for pronouncing adverse judgements against him, from approaching it or any other high court for any cause in public interest.
The apex court also refused to review its March 27 order by which it had imposed a fine of Rs one lakh on him, observing there was no ground for it.
"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," a bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said.
"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," the apex court said.
However, the bench clarified that in case the petitioner has any personal or individual grievance, he can approach a court of competent jurisdiction in consonance with the law.
The apex court was dealing with a letter, filed by the petitioner in the registry, seeking recall of the March 27 order dismissing his appeal and directing him to pay Rs one lakh as cost.
"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 March 27 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," the bench noted.
"In case no such proof is filed in the registry of this court the matter shall be re-listed for enforcement of costs," the court said.
In his plea, which was dismissed by the court on March 27, the petitioner had made two judges on a bench that had passed an adverse order against him respondents in the criminal case.
(This article has not been edited by DNA's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}