Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15835 of 2017 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rabindra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner is a Van Daroga. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the ground that he has been found guilty of felling trees of the forest illegally. The enquiry officer found him guilty but the disciplinary authority has given him a minor punishment of only recovery.
Against the dismissal order the petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed on the ground that he has approached this Court without availing the alternative remedy. In pursuance of the said order he preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by a reasoned order running into several pages. Against the said order a revision lies but the petitioner again came to this Court challenging the said order without availing the alternative remedy.
Learned Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection that the petitioner's writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has approached this Court without availing alternative remedy.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has no satisfactory answer.
Having regard to the fact that the petitioner's earlier writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy and he is fully aware about the filing of the revision as disclosed by his counsel but again he approached this Court. 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 Court. 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/-. 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."
However, in the present case, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a class-III employee, a lenient view is taken. The writ petition is dismissed with the cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
Order Date :- 17.4.2017 Digamber