2.

the petition no 2 involves question of general importance

A question of general importance should not however be used by a petitioner as a means to grind
a personal axe.1 The petitioner should not be inspired by malice or design to malign other, or be
actuated by selfish or personal motives or by political oblique consideration. He should act
bonafide and with a view to vindicate the cause of justice.2

3
The highest court on land decided on the Janata Dal v HS Chowdhary that in “substantial
question of general importance is to ensure observance of the provision of constitution or the law
which can be best achieved to advance the cause of community or disadvantaged groups and
individuals by permitting any person have , any personal gain or private motivation or any
oblique consideration but acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in action of for judicial
redress for public injury to put put judicial machinery in motion like action popularis of roman
law , where by any citizen can bring such an action in respect of public delict.” But in the
petition no 2issues of the private interest and personal gain are involved so it can’t be called as
question of general public importance.

The question of general public importance involves is a weapon which has to be used to be with
great care and circumspection and that the judiciary has to be careful about the private motives 4

If the petitioner’s intent is to be heard grievance of individual capacity alone then the court of
law should dismiss the petition.
The abuse of litigation on the name of general public importance has prompted Supreme Court to
sound precautionary note:
Some person with vested interest indulge in the past time of meddling with judicial process
either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for good deals as well as to
enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The

1
MP Jaain Indian Constitution , 7th edition 2017, page 365
2
SP Gupta v Union of India , Bhagwati,J
3
Janat Dal v HS Chawdhry, AIR 1993SC892 1992 SCC305
4
State of himanchal Pradesh v . student parent Medical Colleage Simhla AIR 1985SC 910
petition of this busy body needs to be thrown out by rejection of thersold , and in appropriate
cases with exemplary costs5

Therefore…

1. Whether the transfer petition filed by KPP and petition filed by Mr. Smiha involves
same or substantially same question of law.
The counsel …that petition 1 filled by Mr.Simha and petition 2 filed by KPP has neither has
same question of law nor substantially same question of law .the facts of the cases are also not
identical, independent and distinct. There is no connection between the both of the petition.

On 31st may 2018Mr. Simha along with two other member from his own party approached
Governor Mr. Kakarlal and questioned the credentials of the Chief Minster. Mr. JD requested to
take action agnist Mr. Smiha with other members. 6while justifying his actions speaker said Mr.
Smiha and other MLA’s who met Governor, as their action of withdrawing support to chief
minister amount to ant defection law under 10th schedule of the constitution of India.7 The action
of Ms.Sinnga Ruchy and Mr. Crwom Smiha comes under two distinct and separate sub
paragraph of 10th schedule of constitution of India subparagraph 2(b) and 2(a) respectively.
When the two independent case comes under the two independent subparagraph of pargraph 2 of
10th schedule8 of constitution of India, the same question of law and substantially same question
of law does not exist.

During the no confidence motion Ms. Singga Ruchy absent from house on the date of floor test.
Later returned and tendered resignation to the protem speaker which was accepted but in simha
‘s case he voluntarily lost membership due to meeting governor and withdrawing support of his
own party. 9the two facts are dissimilar , independent of each other and different altogether
Where the transfer petition pending in the high court raised exactly the same question as in
petition pending in the Supreme court without setting out the facts relating to either the case or
alleged the common question, held the application was liable to be dismissed. Supreme Court on
facts declined to transfer two cases pending in high court which involves same or substantially
5
TN GovardmanThirumulpad v Ashok Khot ,2006,SCC1SC 2007
6
TNNLU-IUMCC September 2018 M00t Proposition.
7
52nd Amendmentof ,1985,Constitution of India,1950
8
9
Rajendra Sing Rane v Swamy Prasad Maurya, AIR 2007 SCC 365
the same question of law because of dissimilar and independent 10 facts which has no
connection .therefore the counsel humbly request to dismiss the petition no 2.

The litigant can’t not do forum shopping.11 The precious time and resources of the highest court
of land will be wasted when the justice is being delivered in the high court of Lumeria. This
allows the judicial burden borne in suitable fora.12The hon’ble supreme court of India dismissed
the application on the ground of alternative remedy avlaible to the party13.

ARUENDO ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES HAVE NOT BEEN EXHAUSTED

It is humbly submitted that Art. 136 is not an absolute right and are subject to the self-imposed

restraints evolved by the judiciary. It has been held that since Art. 136 confers “extraordinary”
jurisdiction, the same must be used sparingly and in circumstances where no alternate efficacious
remedy is available14. The reason for this is two-fold: first, to reduce the increasing pendency 15 of
cases and second, to inspire faith in the hierarchy of Courts and the institution as a whole.16

.It is submitted that the right under Art. 136 is not so absolute that no rules of procedure
apply to it. Art. 136 confers a right to move the SC by "appropriate proceedings”. Appropriate
proceedings” interpreted to mean “procedure relating to form, conditions of lodgment of
petitions, and compliance with a reasonable directions”. 17Indeed, procedural factors such as res
judicata18, delay in filing the petition and parallel proceedings 19 in another Court are considered
before entertaining the appropriateness of a particular proceeding. It is submitted that the rule of
exhaustion of local remedies is another such procedural guideline

and does not violate the right under Art. 32.The power of High Court under Art. 226 is wider
than the powers of this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. 20 Further, the reliefs prayed for
can be granted by High Court. This Hon’ble Court in ICELA held that in cases concerning

10
AIR1991 SC1890
11
Ajay Kumar Pandey (1996)6 SCC 510 AIR 1997
12
State of UP v Hume Pipe Co Ltd.1977 SCC 724
13
Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheswariv Antarim Zila Parisad , Muzzfarpur,SC,AIR 2011,SCC 12
14
Secratry, Govt of Indiav Alka Subash Gadia ,1990 SCR sup (3)
15
PN Kumar v Municipal Crop of Delhi , 1988 SCR (1) 732
16
Kanuhubai Brhabhatta v State of Gujurat AIR 1987 SC (1)
17
Prem Chand Garg v Excise Comissioner AIR 1963 SC.1159
18
Daya Rao v The state of Uttarpradesh ,AIR 1961 SC 996
19
Supra note 7
20
Iindian council for enviro leagal v union of india, 1996, SSC 544
environment, specifically, the High Courts would be in a better position to ascertain local
conditions and facts and therefore, for proper monitoring, they must be preferred. 21 Further, in
another case, concerning the safety of development project, this Hon’ble Court transferred the
matter to the High Court of Uttaranchal as it was expedient. The petitioner in the instant case had
the remedy to approach the Hon’ble High Court. Three decisions of this Hon'ble Court have
observed that petitioners who allege violation of Fundamental rights have to approach the High
Court first rather than Supreme Court in the first instance. In Kanubhai v. State of Gujarat, 22 the
reason given for the view was that there was a huge backlog of cases pending before the
Supreme Court. In another case the court has observed that the petitioner has to show as why the
High Court was not approached or could not be approached and unless satisfactory explanation is
shown, filing petitions directly to Supreme Court is discouraged.23 The issues in the instant case
are similar and require knowledge and ability to assess local conditions. Therefore, it is
submitted that remedy available under Art. 226 are not just an alternative but also, a preferable
remedy.

21
ND Jayal v Union of India 2004 SCC 362
22
Kanubhai vstate of gujurat 1987,SCC 541
23
WB v Ratangiri Engeering Pvt Ltd 2009 4 SCC 453