Satyapal Singh vs Union Of India And Anr

Satyapal Singh ... Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India & Anr. ... Respondents

O R D E R

R.V. Raveendran, J.

Delay condoned. We find no ground to interfere with final order

dismissing the writ petition. But the direction to the writ petitioner

to pay exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/- to the High Court Legal Service

Committee, deserves to be addressed.

2. The petitioner, an employee of the Government Ordnance Factory,

Muradnagar, Ghaziabad (UP), was transferred to Dehradun on 6.10.1998.

As he did not vacate the residential quarters at Muradnagar, the Estate

Officer by order dated 15.6.2000, directed him to vacate the quarters.

The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of eviction. On

1.7.2000, the Appellate authority (District Judge, Ghaziabad) admitted

the appeal, noting that there were `arguable points in the appeal' and

granted interim stay in regard to order of eviction, pending disposal

of the appeal. The appeal was pending for several years and was finally

heard and dismissed on 21.4.2009. The petitioner challenged the order of the appellate authority by filing a writ petition on 28.4.2009. The

High Court, on preliminary hearing, dismissed the writ petition by the

impugned order dated 22.5.2009, holding that the petitioner was under a

legal obligation to hand over the possession of the quarters on

transfer and having failed to do so, the order of eviction was

justified. The High Court also felt that the conduct of the petitioner

in retaining the accommodation for 10 years amounted to indiscipline

and that cannot be tolerated and he should therefore be `saddled with

exemplary costs'. The operative portion of the order of the High Court

levying exemplary costs is extracted below:

"Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The costs so imposed must be deposited by the petitioner through a bank draft in favour of Registrar General of this Court, within one month from today, failing which the District Magistrate shall ensure recovery of the said amount of Rs.50,000/- as arrears of land revenue within a further period of one month and shall transmit the money so collected to the Registrar General. The costs recovered shall be placed in the accounts of the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad."

3. The petitioner sought leave to challenge the order of the High

Court both in regard to upholding of the eviction and levy of

exemplary costs. But when the matter came up today, the learned

counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner vacated the

residential quarters on 19.5.2009 and his only grievance was in regard

to award of Rs.50,000/- as costs.

4. It is true that the case of the petitioner was ultimately found

to be without merit, but the appellate court chose to admit the appeal

and grant stay, stating "there are arguable points in appeal, admit and register". The appellate court did not vacate the interim order

even when the respondents resisted the appeal. The continuation by the

petitioner in the quarters after the order of eviction, was in

pursuance of an interim order granted by the District Court on

1.7.2000 which was continued till the dismissal of the appeal on

21.4.2009. The appellate court while dismissing the appeal did not

consider it a fit case for levy of any costs. The petitioner

challenged the order of the appellate authority by filing a writ

petition. The High Court found no merit in it and dismissed it by

impugned order dated 22.5.2009. The question is whether levy of such

costs and that too for the benefit of legal service authority is

proper.

5. Exemplary costs are levied where a claim is found to be false

or vexatious or where a party is found to be guilty of

misrepresentation, fraud or suppression of facts. In the absence of

any such finding, it will be improper to punish a litigant with

exemplary costs. When the appellate court did not choose to levy any

costs while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner after nine

years of pendency with interim stay, the High Court, while dismissing

the writ petition at preliminary hearing, ought not to have levied

exemplary costs with reference to the period of pendency before the

Appellate Court. We do not find any ground on which the exemplary

costs of Rs.50,000/- could be sustained. Levy of exemplary costs on

ordinary litigants, as punishment for merely for approaching courts

and securing an interim order, when there was no fraud,

misrepresentation or suppression is unwarranted. In fact, it will be bad precedent.

5. Even if any costs are to be levied on a petitioner, for any

default or delaying tactics, where the respondents have entered

appearance, costs should be ordered to be paid to the respondents, who

were the affected parties on account of the litigation. There is no

justification for levying costs of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner

payable to the High Court Legal Service Committee. There is also no

justification for directing the state government to act as the

collecting agent for the costs payable to the Legal Services

Committee. Directing a government servant, an ordinary employee, to

pay Rs. 50,000/- as costs within one month and further directing the

use of coercive process for recovery of costs as arrears of land

revenue was unwarranted. The levy of such exemplary costs in favour of

the High Court Legal Services Committee, is not a healthy practice.

6. The costs may be justifiably made payable to the High Court Legal

Services Committee or other Legal Services Authorities, where before

the other side is served or represented, the court wants to penalise a

petitioner for lapses/omissions/delays, as for example, where the

petitioner fails to pay the process fee for service of respondents, or

fails to cure defects or comply with office objections, or where there

is delay in refiling of petitions. Once the other side is represented,

the costs levied by reason of any attempt by a party to delay the

proceedings, should normally be for the benefit of the other party who

has suffered due to such conduct. Only where both the parties are at

fault, costs may be ordered to be paid to Legal Services Authority. At all events, the power to levy exemplary costs, it is needless to say,

should be used sparingly to advance justice. It should not be

threatening and oppressive.

7. In view of the above, we delete the direction for payment of

exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/-. Subject to such deletion, the Special

leave petition is dismissed.

___________________J.

(R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; ____________________J. November 23, 2009. (K S Radhakrishnan)