2009 (10) TMI 895 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether all claims against the government/statutory authorities should be viewed as illegal and should be resisted and fought up to the highest court of the land? Whether if taking a decision on an issue could be avoided, then it is prudent not to decide the issue and let the aggrieved party approach the Court and secures a decision?

Summary

Issues:
1. Allotment of Plot A-303 and adjacent strip by Bikaner Urban Improvement Trust to the respondent.
2. Unauthorized laying of road by the Trust in the allotted plot without notice or acquisition proceedings.
3. Relief granted by Consumer Forum, State Commission, and National Commission.
4. Challenges raised by the Trust against the relief granted.
5. Consideration of technical grounds for rejecting Trust's contentions.
6. Concern regarding frivolous litigation by governments and statutory authorities.
7. Expectation of responsible behavior from statutory authorities in litigation.
8. Unwarranted litigation by governments and statutory authorities and its causes.
9. Minimum relief granted by the State Commission and Trust's response.
10. Dismissal of the special leave petition due to delay condonation.

Analysis:
The case involves the Bikaner Urban Improvement Trust allotting Plot A-303 and an adjacent strip to the respondent, who later faced unauthorized road construction by the Trust without notice or acquisition proceedings. The respondent sought restoration of the plot or an alternative site, leading to a series of decisions by Consumer Forum, State Commission, and National Commission. The Trust challenged the relief granted on grounds of respondent's negligence, lack of deficiency in service, and limitation period, which were rejected by the courts. The Supreme Court emphasized responsible litigation behavior by governments and statutory authorities, urging against frivolous and unjust objections. It highlighted the need for restitution and correction of harsh attitudes towards public grievances, emphasizing the role of governments as model litigants.

The Court cited precedents emphasizing fair treatment of citizens by governments and public authorities, discouraging reliance on technical pleas to defeat legitimate claims. It noted unwarranted litigation stemming from baseless assumptions and reluctance to make decisions, urging practical norms to reduce unnecessary litigation. In this case, the State Commission granted minimal relief of an alternative plot and compensation, which the Trust resisted by pursuing unnecessary litigation instead of complying with the decision. The Court criticized the Trust's unreasonable stance and emphasized the need for officers to serve the public and avoid unnecessary litigation. Ultimately, the special leave petition was dismissed due to delay condonation, concluding the judgment.