2020 (10) TMI 1335 - SCH - Indian Laws

Whether the statement made by the officer of the petitioner was without any power or authority and does not bind the petitioner? - HELD THAT - The petitioners must be made to pay for the judicial time they have consumed but seeing our approach in the earlier matter, learned senior counsel himself was circumspect from beginning and thus, it is considered appropriate to only impose Rs.10,000/- as costs on the State Government for having approached this Court. The cost be recovered from the officer who took such a decision to come to this Court without taking any action against the officers and that too belatedly or responsible for the delay. The costs be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee within a period of four weeks and a certificate of recovery be filed in this Court within the same period of time. SLP dismissed on the ground of delay.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing petition, Lack of authority of officer, Seeking certificate of dismissal, Imposition of costs

In the judgment delivered by Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ., the Supreme Court addressed the issue of delay in filing the petition. The Court noted a delay of 227 days from the date of the review order, which extended to 502 days if counted from the original order. The petitioner(s) attempted to justify the delay by citing administrative procedures, but the Court emphasized that it was not inclined to condone administrative inefficiencies affecting legal remedies, especially in light of previous judgments. Consequently, the delay was not accepted.

Regarding the lack of authority of the officer representing the petitioner, the Court found that the stand taken in the impugned order was disclaimed by the petitioner, stating that the officer's statement was unauthorized. When questioned about any actions taken against the officer, the petitioner's senior counsel admitted to a lack of instructions in this regard. This attempt to disavow the officer's statement was viewed as an effort to evade a commitment made before the High Court.

The Court highlighted the recurring issue of seeking a certificate of dismissal, as observed in a previous case. It noted that despite no action being taken against the concerned officer, the Government aimed to retract from the commitment made by the officer. Such cases were labeled as "certificate cases," where parties sought dismissal certificates from the Supreme Court to conclude matters quietly.

In terms of imposing costs, the Court decided that the petitioners should bear the costs for the judicial time consumed. However, considering the cautious approach adopted by the senior counsel and to align with the Court's previous stance, a nominal cost of Rs.10,000 was imposed on the State Government for approaching the Court. The Court directed the recovery of costs from the officer responsible for the decision to approach the Court without taking action against the officers or causing delays.

The Court ordered the costs to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee within four weeks, with a certificate of recovery to be filed within the same period. Non-compliance with the order was warned to be met with contempt proceedings against the Commissioner. The order was to be forwarded to the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, and the Special Leave Petition(s) were dismissed due to the delay, with pending applications disposed of accordingly.