Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4109 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to ensure to carve out chak road on spot for petitioner's land of Gata No. 30 in compliance of order dated 30.1.2015 passed by the Collector in Case No. 01 of 2015 under Section 25-A of U.P. C. H. Act, 1953.
The experience reveals that for petty matters the litigants are approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Delhi High Court 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 very liberal in entertaining the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and the litigants have assumed that writ petition is remedy for all type of illnesses in the society, with the result that roster of all the High Courts are choked with the petty matters and they are unable 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 laid down the law that the time has come when the High Courts should curb the tendency of filing frivolous petitions on petty matters and for that heavy cost should be imposed upon the litigants. In another case in Phool Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 112, the Supreme Court has held that to deprecate the tendency of filing of frivolous and petty matters the High Courts should impose cost on advocates also, who accept brief of such frivolous and petty matters.
In view of the above principles of law, I find that in the present case also, a heavy cost is liable to be imposed upon the petitioner. But having regard to the fact that the petitioner belongs to the marginal section of the Society, no such cost is being imposed. If the petitioner indulges in filing such petition in future, cost shall be imposed upon him in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara (supra). However, it is open to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the authority concerned, which, in turn, shall consider the same and pass appropriate order thereon in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the present petitioner is disposed of .
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Ram Murti