Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3640 of 2018 Petitioner :- Karimulla And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to consider their claim for demarcation of their chaks. They have further prayed that their representation may be directed to be considered.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
The Delhi High Court recently in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda and another, W.P. (C) No. 9828 of 2015, has aptly observed that the High Courts have become so liberal in entertaining the writ petitions that it has been assumed that writ of mandamus is remedy for all kind of ailments, with the result that huge pendency of cases has choked the roster of the High Courts and the High Courts are not able to decide the important matters, which are becoming infructuous. The Supreme Court also in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 470, has observed that it is high time when the High Courts should curb the tendency of filing frivolous writ petitions by imposing heavy cost and the High Courts should not interfere in petty matters. Relevant part of the judgment of the Supreme Court is extracted below:
"191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long-drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings) worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his. Should a litigant not be compensated for what he has lost for no fault? The suggestion to the legislature is that a litigant who has succeeded must be compensated by the one who has lost. The suggestion to the legislature is to formulate a mechanism that anyone who initiates and continues a litigation senselessly pays for the same. It is suggested that the legislature should consider the introduction of a "Code of Compulsory Costs".
192. We should not be taken to have suggested that the cost of litigation should be enhanced. It is not our suggestion that the court fee or other litigation related costs should be raised. Access to justice and related costs should be as free and as low as possible. What is sought to be redressed is a habituation to press illegitimate claims. This practice and pattern is so rampant that in most cases disputes which ought to have been settled in no time at all before the first court of incidence are prolonged endlessly for years and years and from court to court up to the highest Court.
193. This abuse of the judicial process is not limited to any particular class of litigants. The State and its agencies litigate endlessly up to the highest Court just because of the lack of responsibility to take decisions. So much so that we have started to entertain the impression that all administrative and executive decision-making are being left to courts just for that reason. In private litigation as well, the litigant concerned would continue to approach the higher Court, despite the fact that he had lost in every court hithertobefore. The effort is not to discourage a litigant in whose perception his cause is fair and legitimate. The effort is only to introduce consequences if the litigant's perception was incorrect and if his cause is found to be not fair and legitimate, he must pay for the same. In the present setting of the adjudicatory process, a litigant no matter how irresponsible he is suffers no consequences. Every litigant, therefore, likes to take a chance even when counsel's advice is otherwise."
Having regard to the aforesaid principles, in my view, no interference is called for in this writ petition. The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is a complete Code in itself. It is open to the petitioners to take recourse to such remedy which is available under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 SKT/-