Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25325 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mojjama And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Nath Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
The petitioners are eight in number. They claim that they are the Members of Nagar Panchayat, Sakhanu, Budaun. They have instituted the writ proceedings for a direction upon the District Magistrate, Badaun to terminate the services of the 6th respondent, Shri Jahirul Hasan, who is working on the post of Clerk. The relief, sought by the petitioner, is extracted below:-
"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authority to consider the claim of the petitioners, which is pending before the respondent authority in respect of termination of the respondent no. 6 from Nagar Panchayat, Sakhanu, Budaun posted at Daily Wages Employee."
On 8th August, 2019, we had asked the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 & 6 to seek instructions in the matter. He has received the instruction in the matter, which is taken on the record.
The instructions indicate that Shri Jahirul Hasan's services were terminated on 21st July, 2009. Aggrieved by the said order, he had made a representation before the appropriate authority, the District Magistrate, Budaun.
The District Magistrate, Budaun, vide order dated 8th March, 2010 has set aside the order of termination. It appears that the petitioners, who are the Members of the Nagar Panchayat, have concealed this fact and have instituted the writ petitions.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
We are of the view that this writ petition is a frivolous writ petition. Eight members of the Nagar Panchayat have preferred this writ petition. We cannot believe that all the petitioners were oblivious of the fact that the District Magistrate has already set aside the termination of the 6th respondent. Hence, we are of the view that the petitioners have abused the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 470 has laid down the law that the High Court has become very lenient in entertaining frivolous writ petitions and that is one of the reasons of huge pendency of the cases in the High Courts. The Supreme Court has laid down that heavy costs should be imposed on frivolous writ petitions and the cost suggested by the Supreme Court is more than Rs. 50,000/-. The Court has further observed that it is appropriate time when such writ petitions should be dealt with firmed-hand and very heavy cost should be imposed upon such petitions. The Court has also observed that a large number of appeals of the under-trials and important matters are pending in the High Courts which are becoming infructuous as the under-trials are remaining in jail for years together as the High Courts do not have the time to decide those cases due to the frivolous and petty matters. Relevant part of the judgment in Subrata Roy Sahara (supra) is extracted herein 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 due regard to the fact that all the petitioners are the Members of the Nagar Panchayat, we impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- upon each of the petitioners. The costs shall be deposited in the State Legal Services Authority, High Court, Allahabad.
In case the cost is not deposited within six weeks from today, we direct the District Magistrate, Budaun to recover the costs as arrears of land revenue from the petitioners and remit the matter to the High Court on the said count.
A copy of this order be sent to the District Magistrate, Budaun by the Office for the communication and compliance of this order.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Amit Mishra