2019 (10) TMI 1283 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Direction to deposit an amount on the ground that the appellant has passed a whimsical order - case of appellant is that the appellant was not heard in the matter - HELD THAT - The first contention that the appellant was not heard in the matter, the same cannot be accepted in view of the fact that she was represented by the Government Advocate before the learned Single Judge. She was arrayed as respondent No.1 in her official capacity. It is needless to state that the writ petitions are filed against the State in the name of the office held by the concerned officer. There is no individual malice with which the writ petitions are filed. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that she was not a party and was not heard when the order was passed, is incorrect. The said submission, therefore, cannot be accepted. There are no good ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in the said matter. The reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge does not merit any interference - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order directing deposit of costs due to whimsical order passed by appellant without being heard.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged an order directing her to deposit costs of ?50,000 due to an alleged whimsical order passed without her being heard. The appellant's counsel argued that the order was erroneous and should be set aside. The appellant claimed she was not heard and no whimsical order was passed. The counsel cited additional documents and a Supreme Court judgment to support the case. However, the High Court found no merit in the appeal.

Regarding the contention that the appellant was not heard, the High Court noted that the appellant was represented by the Government Advocate before the Single Judge and was a respondent in her official capacity. The court highlighted that writ petitions are filed against the State based on the office held by the officer, not individual malice. Therefore, the claim of not being heard was deemed incorrect and rejected.

The High Court also considered the Supreme Court judgment cited by the appellant's counsel. The Court reviewed the evidence on record and the conduct justifying the remarks made in the impugned order. The Single Judge had previously held that the officer's order suffered from malice-in-fact and malice-in-law, terming it whimsical. As a result, the officer was directed to pay exemplary costs, which the High Court found justified based on the Single Judge's findings.

The High Court concluded that the Single Judge's decision to impose costs on the officer for passing a whimsical order was valid and within discretion. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's decision and dismissed the appeal. The judgment upheld the order directing the appellant to deposit costs and did not find any grounds for setting it aside.