[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Kumar, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs [2004] EWHC 3362 (Admin) (8 November 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/3362.html Cite as: [2004] EWHC 3362 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		Monday, 8 November 2004

1. MR JUSTICE MOSES: This is a renewed application by Mr Ranbir Kumar, who appears in person, for permission to apply for judicial review. In these proceedings he seeks to challenge a number of decisions made at the Leicester District Registry of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, in particular three decisions made in September 2004. He also seeks to prevent the defendant from a hearing scheduled for 19th November by way of declaration that that hearing is unlawful. Munby J refused permission on the papers on the grounds that the application was an abuse of process.
2. The applicant before me today seeks to argue that he has rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights which he is entitled to enforce, pursuant to the 1998 Act. He says that that was a point which had not previously been considered by Pitchford J, who had already refused permission in relation to decisions in Stoke-on-Trent and elsewhere in a judgment that he gave on 18th February 2004 in case 5542 (see [2004] EWHC 654).
3. There is no merit whatever in these applications. Mr Kumar has been told previously, and was told by Munby J, and is now going to be told by me again, that any remedy he has against a decision of the county court or of the High Court in the District Registry is by way of appeal to the Court of Appeal Civil Division, should either the Court of the Leicester District Registry or elsewhere in the county court, or the Court of Appeal, give permission. They have so far refused to do so for wholly understandable reasons. He cannot therefore come here and seek relief by way of judicial review whatever his cause of action, be it under the 1998 Human Rights Act or for any other reason. In those circumstances permission is refused.
4. There is also before the court an application by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs for a general civil restraint order, or alternatively extended civil restraint order, applying the principles set out in Bhamjee v Forsdick & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1113. The basis of the application is that these proceedings are yet another set of proceedings which demonstrate the persistence with which this applicant seeks to subject Government departments to inconvenience, harassment and expense, out of all proportion to any possible benefit. The evidence which I have read of Venetia Jackson (?) and the documents amply bear this out.
5. In Kumar v Home Office SQ 303 113 Mr Kumar claimed the sum of £100,000 against the Home Office for alleged illegal detention of his passport. He had sought entry clearance as a student of Staffordshire University, but this was refused because the officer was not satisfied that he had been accepted for the course of studies. His claim was struck out on 28th November 2003 by Poole J. He was ordered to pay costs but, so far as I am aware, has not done so. He has applied for permission to appeal against this decision to the Court of Appeal.
6. In Kumar v Mulholland SQ 303 485 Mr Kumar issued libel proceedings against officers of Staffordshire University. This claim was struck out with costs at a contested hearing on 13th October 2003. In Kumar v Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office [2003] 554 2 Mr Kumar issued proceedings claiming relief for judicial review in relation to the alleged detention and return of his passport. In addition, he sought a grant of asylum and permanent leave to remain on the grounds that his human rights had been abused by English courts. Permission was refused on the papers and at an oral hearing by Pitchford J on 18th October 2004. Permission to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal.
7. In Kumar v Secretary of State for the Home Department 771 [2004] he made an asylum claim based on the same facts as the case to which I have already referred and, in addition, seeking a declaration that he had been denied accommodation in contravention of Article 3. On 19th May 2004 Collins J described the case as "manifestly ill-founded" since the applicant was complaining about his treatment here and not in India.
8. In Kumar v Secretary of State for the Home Department H204X01092 (?) Mr Kumar sought access to information in the Home Office in Home Office files relating to him. He had refused to pay the fee under the Data Protection Regulations. Mr Kumar claimed damages in excess of £50,000 in respect of alleged violations under the Human Rights Act 1998. His claim was dismissed on 8th June 2004.
9. In these proceedings, as I have already said, he seeks a declaration and damages in respect of actions which I have already detailed and brought in the District Registry.
10. Recitation of these cases does, in my judgment, demonstrate that this applicant persists in vexatious behaviour. The question is whether that behaviour subjects defendants such as the defendant in this case and others to inconvenience, harassment and expense, out of all proportion to any gain likely to accrue to him. The claims which I have identified show that this applicant brings actions or claims at the drop of a hat without any merit whatever. He has no prospect in the claims so far of gaining any benefit out of them and it is plain to me that they are designed no more than to cause harassment, inconvenience and expense to anyone against which they are targeted.
11. I have considered whether it would be sufficient to make an extended civil restraint order, but in my view that is wholly unrealistic. It is plain that the applicant is prepared to use a scattergun approach and fire off claims of any nature whatever against any defendant that he sees within his sights.
12. In those circumstances I am quite satisfied that it is necessary to make a general civil restraint order. I shall make such an order prohibiting Mr Kumar, for a period not exceeding 2 years, from instituting any proceedings or applications in the High Court or in any county court without permission of either myself or Collins J.