Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39133 of 2018
Petitioner :- Shamsher Singh
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. This writ petition has been preferred with the following reliefs-
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the application dated 30.7.2018 filed by the petitioner (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition).
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the parties to maintain status quo on the spot during the pendency of the case before the respondent no.2."
2. From perusal of contents of the writ petition it is evident that the matter relates to the property dispute which is pending before the second respondents. The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus to respondent no.2 to decide the application.
3. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ali Shad Usmani and others v. Ali Isteba and others, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) has held as under:
"2. We are not inclined to issue a direction for the expeditious hearing of a Civil Suit which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), District-Azamgarh. It would be most inappropriate to Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution simply for the purpose of expediting the hearing of a suit. Such orders, if granted, place a class of litigants, who move the Court in a separate and preferential category whereas other cases which may be of similar or greater antiquity and urgency are left to be decided in the normal channel. Hence, any such direction may be issued with the greatest care and circumspection by the High Court otherwise the Civil Courts will be overburdened only with requests for expeditious disposal of suits, which have been expedited by the High Court. Most of the litigants cannot afford the expense of moving the High Court and would not, therefore, be in a position to have the benefit of such an order.
3. Ultimately, it must be left to the judicious exercise of discretion of the concerned Court to determine whether a ground for urgency has been made out. We emphasize that there may be other cases such as involving senior citizens, those who are differently abled or people suffering from a particular disabililty socio-economic or otherwise which may prime cause of urgent disposal. It is for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply his or her mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited."
4. In a writ petition being Writ-B No. 3569 of 2018 (Dashrath v. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh & others) this Court has held that the principle held in Ali Shad Usmani (supra) can be safely applied to the Revenue Courts and other Administrative Tribunals also.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 470, has taken the judicial notice of frivolous litigation and to curb such pendency has laid down the law that heavy costs should be imposed upon such litigants. The relevant paragraphs, being paragraph-191, 192 and 193 of the judgment, are quoted 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."
6. Recently, 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, considering the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court has held that Article 226 of the Constitution is not a cure for all ailments. It is an extraordinary jurisdiction and it can be exercised in exceptional cases. The Delhi High Court has also noticed that for the last some years the High Courts have become very liberal in entertaining the writ petitions with the result that the important matters are not being taken up and the Courts are struggling with huge filing of the cases. The observation of the Delhi High Court is worth extracting:
"...The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary remedy, to be not invoked or allowed to be invoked ordinarily, as is found being done increasingly, leaving very little time for the High Courts to deal under Article 226 with issues really deserving consideration thereunder. Supreme Court, as far back as in Rashid Ahmed Vs. Municipal Board, Kairana AIR 1950 SC 163 and Nain Sukh Das Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 384 held that prerogative writs are extraordinary remedies intended to be applied in exceptional cases in which the ordinary legal remedies are not adequate but in the last over half century the said principle appears to have been forgotten, with the writ remedy being considered as a cure for all ordinary ailments also and for which the ordinary legal remedies under the civil law are adequate. The same has resulted in the High Courts being inundated with writ petitions, the disposal whereof axiomatically is found to be taking, in most cases, as much time as the disposal of an ordinary civil lis, and which has resulted in the High Courts facing difficulty in providing immediate relief even in deserving cases in writ jurisdiction and / or being left with little time to ponder over the important constitutional issues coming before it in the writ jurisdiction. In my humble view, a time has thus come for the High Courts to send out a clear message of the writ remedy being an extraordinary remedy not available as an alternative to the remedy already available under the civil and general laws."
7. In view of the above, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. . The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 M.A.Ansari