Supreme
Court on Accountability of public servant
It has been observed over the years that large number of cases
are initiated or defended by the State and therefore their action, wrongful
action or inaction constitute the largest chunk of cases in courts’ docket. It
has been observed in the past that large number of cases remained in Courts’
docket owing to lack of action or lack of a will of rederessal on the part of
state. The government employees designated for the redressal of disputes does
not take a decision and therefore, people have to approach court. In other
words, several government employees conveniently leave matters to be
adjudicated by courts, whereas in ordinary vigilance bulk of such issues could
be resolved at that end itself. The courts of law including Supreme Court has periodically
been raising anguish about it, but the malaise
remained. The issue of apathy or accountability of government employees has been
dealt with by the Supreme Court and the fact as to how indifference and
indecision caused consternation to a party.
As illustrated in the above preface, the Supreme Court has been deprecating the conduct of the litigants in
flooding this Court with frivolous litigations, which are choking the dockets
as a result of which the matters, which require consideration are delayed. In Dynandeo Sabaji Naik &
Ors. vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar & Ors (2017) 5 SCC 496
the Supreme Court has observed as below:
“13. This Court must view with
disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the
judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with
firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of
the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should
not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of
judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order
to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country,
there is no premium on the truth.”
“14. Courts across the legal
system-this Court not being an exception - are choked with litigation.
Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the
administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure.
Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes
are dissipated in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by
prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested
interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present case exemplifies, the process
of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the
legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied
the time of the courts and of how successive applications have been filed to
prolong the inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of justice lies
has in the process been left in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a
stale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if courts across the system adopt
an institutional approach which penalizes such behaviour. Liberal access to justice
does not mean access to chaos and Indiscipline. A strong message must be
conveyed that courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by
litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the law. Unless
remedial action is taken by all courts here and now our society will breed a
legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every
court to firmly deal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is
a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent
the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can set apart
time to resolve genuine causes and
answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time
costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to
citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate
causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a
situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a matter of
discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the
legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat
or delay justice. We commend all courts to deal with frivolous filings in the
same manner.”
The
anguish and concern of the hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be more explicit than
what is illustrated above.
The
hon’ble Supreme Court as a sequel to the above judgment has cited with approval
the aforesaid ratio in its later judgment reported as ICOMM Tele Ltd. Vs. Punjab State Water Supply
and Sewerage Board and Ors (2019) 4 SCC 401.
What may be of pertinence is that way back in 2006, the hon’ble
Supreme Court had to deal with similar issue in a matter reported as Sanjay Gera vs. Haryana
Urban Development Authority & Anr (2005) 3 SCC 207 and yet again in a matter captioned
as Haryana Urban Development Authority
Versus
Jagdeep Singh Civil Appeal
No.4709 of 2011, vide a judgment dated 8th May
2023 the Supreme Court has reiterated its concern.
To put in perspective, in Haryana
Urban (Supra), The dispute pertains to demand of additional price for the
allotment of plot to the Respondent. One of the conditions in the letter of
allotment was that the price of the plot was tentative; the additional price
can be demanded only on account of increase in cost of land awarded by the
competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act. It is admitted case of the
Appellant that the land on which the plot in question was carved out was not
acquired rather it was transferred by the Animal Husbandry Department of the
State to the Appellants. The price thereof was determined at the time of
transfer, however, in case later on different price is determined, the allottees
cannot be made to bear the increased cost.
Due to the above undisputed position, the suit and successive
appeals were disposed of and the Supreme Court has held that as such there is
no illegality committed by the learned court below in setting aside the demand
of the additional price of the plot allotted to the Respondent. The Supreme
Court has observed that a civil suit was filed on 1.10.2003 by the Respondent challenging
the demand of additional price. Pertinently, judgment of Supreme Court in
Sanjay Gera (Supra) was delivered on 22.02.2005 and despite this fact being in knowledge
of the Appellants, the suit was contested and the same was decreed on
19.08.2008. Yet again, appeal was preferred by the appellant before the First Appellate
Court and on failure even before the High Court and thereafter before Supreme
Court. The time of the court was wasted at different levels. Thus, the Supreme
Court was pleased to impose cost of Rs 1,00,000/- on the appellant to be
deposited in Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
It may be worthwhile to reproduce para 23 of Haryana Urban (supra). The Supreme Court has
held that:
“The
additional amount sought to be recovered from the Respondent was Rs 26,880/- to
which there was no justification even at the stage of issuance of notice. The
suit was decreed on 19.08.2008. The amount spent on litigation would be much
more. It is because of impersonal and irresponsible attitude of the officers,
who want to put everything to Court and shirk to take decisions. However, still
the Appellants had not only filed appeals, resulting in addition to the
pendency of cases and also must have spent huge amount on litigation in the
form of fee of the counsels and allied expenses. Besides that, number of
officer(s)/official(s) must have visited the counsel engaged either at
Chandigarh, when the matter was taken up in the High Court and thereafter to
this Court, when the order was challenged before this Court. Even that amount
also needs to be calculated and recovered from the guilty officers who, despite
there being judgment of this Court, dealing with the same issue opined the case
to be fit for filing appeals”.
The Supreme Court has further observed that what is clearly
established that the present case is a frivolous litigation and the appellant
contested that in different courts at different levels, where the officers
shirk to take responsibility. The para no.23 of the judgment rendered in
Haryana Urban (Supra) succinctly makes it further clear:
“23. The additional amount
sought to be recovered from the Respondent was Rs 26,880/- to which there was
no justification even at the stage of issuance of notice. The suit was decreed
on 19.08.2008. The amount spent on litigation would be much more. It is because
of impersonal and irresponsible attitude of the officers, who want to put everything
to Court and shirk to take decisions. However, still the Appellants had not
only filed appeals, resulting in addition to the pendency of cases and also
must have spent huge amount on litigation in the form of fee of the counsels
and allied expenses. Besides that, number of officer(s)/official(s) must have
visited the counsel engaged either at Chandigarh, when the matter was taken up
in the High Court and thereafter to this Court, when the order was challenged
before this Court. Even that amount also needs to be calculated and recovered from
the guilty officers who, despite there being judgment of this Court, dealing
with the same issue opined the case to be fit for filing appeals”.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
CONCLUSION
The cause of concern therefore has been the apathy, indifference
and callous attitude of government authorities, who abdicate their
responsibility and fails to take decision and needlessly leaves every issue to
be decided by the courts, thereby burdening the courts’ docket and time and
energy consumed due to it is colossal. If the appropriate decision with
alacrity is taken at that stage itself, several needless litigation shall not
fill courts dockets. More importantly, one cannot be oblivious to the tyranny
that a litigant undergoes in contesting frivolous litigation or objection and that
too at different levels and decades are consumed in contesting a case. The proverb
“justice delayed is justice denied” cannot
be overstated. In order to prevent such attitude the Supreme Court has periodically
been stating in clear term that such an attitude needs deprecation and cost is
also imposed on the delinquent party as a deterrent. It is hoped that after the
most recent pronouncement of hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban (Supra),
the intended message shall be adequately transmitted to all concerned. However,
it may be necessary to raise a guideline and suitable punitive measures may be
prescribed for deliberate apathy and callousness with such safeguards as may be
necessary, else, despite settled law, the ordinary people shall continue to
suffer.
-------
Anil
K Khaware
Founder
& Senior Associate
Societylawandjustice.com
No comments:
Post a Comment