Delhi HC slaps 50k costs on petitioner claiming Jan 2017 session of Delhi Legislative Assembly was unconstitutional

In a bid discourage frivolous litigation, the Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on a petitioner seeking a declaration that the January 2017 session of the Delhi Legislative Assembly was unconstitutional, illegal and invalid..As per the Court’s order, the costs will be deposited towards the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust..The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru in a petition by Prashant Kumar Umrao..The fifth part of the fourth session of the Delhi Legislative Assembly was adjourned sine die on November 15, 2016. The session resumed on January 17, 2017, which was the sixth part of the fourth session. The notification for the same was put up on the website of the Delhi Legislative Assembly on January 10, 2017..It was petitioner’s claim that the January 17, 2017 session was illegal in terms of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, as the first session of each year was required to commence with the address by the Lieutenant Governor..The Delhi government contended that since the session that began on January 17, 2017, was only in resumption of the session that was adjourned, an address by the Lt. Governor was not required..When the first session of the Delhi Legislative Assembly for the year 2017 commenced on March 6, 2017, the address by the Lt. Governor was duly delivered, the Court was informed..The petitioner further argued that the session that commenced on January 17, 2017 “ought to be considered as the first session of the year 2017, as the same could not be left at the whims and fancies of the Speaker”..The Court opined that in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India and Ors , the law of adjournment and prorogation in the context of Article 87(1) of the Constitution of India was settled..The present petition was, therefore, unmerited, it said..The Court, went on to conclude that the present petition also warranted the imposition of costs..“The petitioner has unnecessarily sought to raise a controversy, where none exists. As noticed above, the issue has been authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court. This court is of the view that such frivolous litigation ought to be discouraged.”.The Court also observed that the petitioner was “not particularly prejudiced by the commencement of the session”. Although the present petition was essentially in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has attempted to avoid the procedure required to file a PIL, it said..The Court thus dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 50,000..The petitioner was represented by Advocates RP Luthra and Sourabh Luthra..Delhi Government was represented by Standing Counsel Ramesh Singh with Advocate Prabhsahay Kaur..Read the order: