The Bombay High Court recently voiced its frustration with the State’s repeated requests for adjournments, which have severely hampered the progress of legal proceedings [Sudhakar Madhukar Patil v The Collector, Thane].A Bench Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan expressed its dissatisfaction with what it described as a "robotic approach" in seeking extension of time to file reply affidavits and other documents. The Court warned that such delays are detrimental to judicial efficiency and announced a stricter stance going forward."Considering repeated instances of such robotic approach of endless adjournments being sought to file reply affidavits, henceforth we are inclined to take a strict view of the matter more particularly when the orders passed by the Court directing the State/respondents to file reply affidavit within specific timelines are not being complied, unless there is a valid justification and an appropriate application is made in that regard seeking extension of time. In the event there is no justification, we shall not permit the request either for an adjournment or to file reply affidavits except on payment of costs."To address these persistent delays, the Court proposed the issuance of a new circular designed to streamline the filing of reply affidavits and improve communication of court orders. The proposed circular to be issued by the office of Government Pleader on both the appellate and original sides shall aim to establish "an effective procedure in regard to communication of Court orders and a prompt action to file reply affidavits," the order dated August 29 said..The Court was adjudicating a dispute between one Sudhakar Madhukar Patil and the Thane Collector, when it criticized the State's habitual approach of seeking adjournments.The Court noted that despite a specific order issued over a year ago requiring the filing of reply affidavits, the required documents were yet to be submitted.The Court also expressed concern that its orders may not be communicated effectively to the concerned departments."We also have some doubt whether orders passed by the Court are informed to the concerned department, as in many cases such information is not being put up before the Court. The respondents cannot have an approach that the orders passed by this Court issuing such specific directions are rendered meaningless and the proceedings are to be listed only to be adjourned," the order stated.In response to these issues, the Court emphasized the need for an improved communication system. "This order be forwarded by the learned AGP to the learned Advocate General as well as to the learned Government Pleader on the Appellate Side and Original Side, so that with the modern I.T. facilities being available, a circular can be issued prescribing an effective procedure in regard to communication of Court orders and a prompt action to file reply affidavits can be devised.".To address the persistent non-compliance in the case, the Court granted a final extension for the filing of reply affidavits until September 12. This extension is conditional on the respondents-State and City Industrial and Development Corporation (CIDCO) paying a cost of ₹10,000 each to the petitioners. "In the above circumstances, when for a period of one year an order passed by this Court directing the respondents to file reply affidavit is not being complied, we have no alternative but to impose costs. Thus, as a matter of last chance, liberty is granted to file reply affidavits not later than 12 September 2024, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioners," the Court ordered.Any further extension will only be permitted under exceptional circumstances and will incur additional costs, the Court made it clear while posting the matter for hearing next on September 12..Senior Advocate Atul Damle along with advocate Prashant D Patil appeared for the petitioners.Additional Government Pleader MS Bane represented the State.Advocates Ashutosh M Kulkarni and Akshay R Kulkarni appeared for CIDCO.[Read Order]
The Bombay High Court recently voiced its frustration with the State’s repeated requests for adjournments, which have severely hampered the progress of legal proceedings [Sudhakar Madhukar Patil v The Collector, Thane].A Bench Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan expressed its dissatisfaction with what it described as a "robotic approach" in seeking extension of time to file reply affidavits and other documents. The Court warned that such delays are detrimental to judicial efficiency and announced a stricter stance going forward."Considering repeated instances of such robotic approach of endless adjournments being sought to file reply affidavits, henceforth we are inclined to take a strict view of the matter more particularly when the orders passed by the Court directing the State/respondents to file reply affidavit within specific timelines are not being complied, unless there is a valid justification and an appropriate application is made in that regard seeking extension of time. In the event there is no justification, we shall not permit the request either for an adjournment or to file reply affidavits except on payment of costs."To address these persistent delays, the Court proposed the issuance of a new circular designed to streamline the filing of reply affidavits and improve communication of court orders. The proposed circular to be issued by the office of Government Pleader on both the appellate and original sides shall aim to establish "an effective procedure in regard to communication of Court orders and a prompt action to file reply affidavits," the order dated August 29 said..The Court was adjudicating a dispute between one Sudhakar Madhukar Patil and the Thane Collector, when it criticized the State's habitual approach of seeking adjournments.The Court noted that despite a specific order issued over a year ago requiring the filing of reply affidavits, the required documents were yet to be submitted.The Court also expressed concern that its orders may not be communicated effectively to the concerned departments."We also have some doubt whether orders passed by the Court are informed to the concerned department, as in many cases such information is not being put up before the Court. The respondents cannot have an approach that the orders passed by this Court issuing such specific directions are rendered meaningless and the proceedings are to be listed only to be adjourned," the order stated.In response to these issues, the Court emphasized the need for an improved communication system. "This order be forwarded by the learned AGP to the learned Advocate General as well as to the learned Government Pleader on the Appellate Side and Original Side, so that with the modern I.T. facilities being available, a circular can be issued prescribing an effective procedure in regard to communication of Court orders and a prompt action to file reply affidavits can be devised.".To address the persistent non-compliance in the case, the Court granted a final extension for the filing of reply affidavits until September 12. This extension is conditional on the respondents-State and City Industrial and Development Corporation (CIDCO) paying a cost of ₹10,000 each to the petitioners. "In the above circumstances, when for a period of one year an order passed by this Court directing the respondents to file reply affidavit is not being complied, we have no alternative but to impose costs. Thus, as a matter of last chance, liberty is granted to file reply affidavits not later than 12 September 2024, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioners," the Court ordered.Any further extension will only be permitted under exceptional circumstances and will incur additional costs, the Court made it clear while posting the matter for hearing next on September 12..Senior Advocate Atul Damle along with advocate Prashant D Patil appeared for the petitioners.Additional Government Pleader MS Bane represented the State.Advocates Ashutosh M Kulkarni and Akshay R Kulkarni appeared for CIDCO.[Read Order]