9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. The ceiling limit of deposit for production of answer scripts. 2. The right of the Council to retain the deposit. 3. The Court's power to appropriate costs from the deposit at the final hearing. Summary: Issue 1: Ceiling Limit of Deposit for Production of Answer Scripts The primary issue was whether the court's direction that the deposit for the production of answer scripts should not exceed Rs. 500 per script is correct. The Bench noted conflicting views in two previous judgments. The first judgment suggested a fixed ceiling of Rs. 500 per script, while the second judgment disagreed, stating that a generalized ceiling is improper. The Bench concluded that the view fixing a ceiling limit of Rs. 500 per script does not find any legal support and answered this issue in the negative. Issue 2: Right of the Council to Retain the Deposit The second issue examined whether the order of deposit creates any right for the Council to retain it altogether. The Bench rejected the contention that the deposit order gives the Council a vested right to retain the deposit. The Bench clarified that the deposit is merely a security to ensure the Council does not suffer in a meritless action by the examinee. The principle of res judicata does not apply to the order of deposit as it is a procedural matter, not a substantive law issue. Thus, the answer to this issue was in the negative. Issue 3: Court's Power to Appropriate Costs from the Deposit The third issue was whether the Court has the power to appropriate costs from the deposit at the final hearing. The Bench affirmed that the Court has the discretion to appropriate costs from the deposit based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court's discretion should be exercised judiciously, considering the hardship faced by both parties. The Bench emphasized that no hard and fast rule can be laid down for appropriation, and it should be left to the Court's discretion. Therefore, the answer to this issue was in the affirmative. Conclusion: The matter was disposed of with the Bench's views to be considered in all other related appeals. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial discretion and the need for a case-by-case approach in determining deposits and appropriations.
|
