9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Inefficient conduct of litigation by the Union of India leading to delays and wastage of public money.
Analysis: 1. The appeal in question arose from a writ petition decided by the writ court in June 1987. The appeal was filed belatedly in December 1987 and came up for admission in August 1989. The appellants had remained absent before the single judge, and no motion was taken out to set aside the ex parte order on the writ petition. The reason given for not taking out the motion was advice from the Deputy Legal Advisor, Ministry of Law, which was deemed misleading by the court. The appeal faced obstacles due to objections not being removed, resulting in dismissal by the Prothonotary in June 1988. A subsequent motion for condonation of delay was deemed incompetent. Despite various procedural hurdles, the appeal was eventually restored, but faced dismissal for default of appearance in January 1989, leading to further motions and delays. 2. The court expressed disappointment in the inefficient conduct of litigation by the Union of India, highlighting consistent delays, wastage of court time, and public money. The court noted a lack of improvement in the conduct of litigation by the Department of Law and the Department of Finance over the past 20 years. The court emphasized that the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds of the Union's irresponsible conduct alone. The judgment criticized the Union of India for its lack of remorse for its misconduct, leading to a directive for the Prothonotary to send a copy of the order to the Union Minister for Law and the Union Minister for Finance. This directive aimed to address the delays and backlog in court dockets caused by the improper and irresponsible litigation conduct of the Union of India. 3. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, with each party bearing their own costs. The judgment served as a stern warning to the Union of India regarding the need for improvement in the handling of litigation matters to prevent further delays, wastage of resources, and misconduct in court proceedings.
|
