Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4081 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sona Devi Respondent :- District Magistrate Allahabad And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the application of the petitioner dated 14.5.2018 under Section 28 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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 for filing such writ petition. But having regard to the fact that the petitioner belongs to the marginal section of the Society, no such cost is being imposed. 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.
The Stamp Reporter is directed that in future, in case the petitioner files a writ petition for the same cause of action, the same shall not be reported unless the petitioner deposits a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The said amount shall be refunded in case her writ petition is allowed.
With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of .
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Ram Murti