Pendency of cases before High Court is a malady and governments are chiefly responsible for the same, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed..A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth said the Central and State governments together form the biggest litigants in the country, especially at the High Court level.It added that their non-cooperation and the tendency to seek adjournments for filing of replies on account of change of panel of lawyers or due to non-availability of concerned officer in-charge, was rampant."This Court is time and again handicapped from deciding matters which are essentially relating to revenue on account of non-filing of replies. In several cases, this Court had passed orders giving last opportunity to file reply, failing which, the concerned Officer In-charge would have to explain as to why costs should not be imposed upon him," the Court said. Such directions seem to be hard but have been passed solely with a purpose to get the replies on record, it clarified..The Court was hearing a batch of 37 writ petitions that were listed for final arguments. There was an interim order operating in all the cases.Though the counsel representing the petitioners said they are ready to argue the matter on the basis of reply filed in one of the cases, the Punjab government sought more time to file reply and sought adjournment..The Court noted that it had already earlier granted time to the State to file their reply after issuing notices. "We are pained to observe that the State Government and its various Departments do not file reply at the first instance in almost all the cases which are coming up before this Court. On the date fixed by the Court after notice, adjournments are requested by the learned State counsel for filing reply. There are several cases where replies have not been filed for years together by the State and its authorities, resulting in huge pendency of cases," the Court said..Considering the situation, the Court said it would not ignore the issue in cases where ex-parte stay orders have been passed. The interim stay orders continue to remain in force for years together affecting revenue of the State, it highlighted.Thus, the Court proposed that the State should have a "litigation policy" to address the issue."We, therefore, propose to direct the Government of Punjab to set up a litigation policy addressing the said malady in which there should be a Permanent Cell consisting of the responsible Officers of the State Government, who would examine whether the petitions should be filed in matters where the issues stand already finally adjudicated by this Court and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.".The Court adjourned the matter to November 25 and asked the Chief Secretary of Punjab to submit a report on or before the next date of warning.It further warned that if the pleadings are not completed by the State government and its authorities before the next date of hearing, a cost of ₹10 lakh will be imposed which will be recoverable from the salaries of the officers in charge of the concerned departments..Senior Advocate Radhika Suri and advocates Sandeep Goyal, Abhinav Narang, Aalok Jagga, Harkirat Jagdev and Sahil Lohan appeared for the petitioner.AAG Saurabh Kapoor appeared for the State..[Read Order]
Pendency of cases before High Court is a malady and governments are chiefly responsible for the same, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed..A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth said the Central and State governments together form the biggest litigants in the country, especially at the High Court level.It added that their non-cooperation and the tendency to seek adjournments for filing of replies on account of change of panel of lawyers or due to non-availability of concerned officer in-charge, was rampant."This Court is time and again handicapped from deciding matters which are essentially relating to revenue on account of non-filing of replies. In several cases, this Court had passed orders giving last opportunity to file reply, failing which, the concerned Officer In-charge would have to explain as to why costs should not be imposed upon him," the Court said. Such directions seem to be hard but have been passed solely with a purpose to get the replies on record, it clarified..The Court was hearing a batch of 37 writ petitions that were listed for final arguments. There was an interim order operating in all the cases.Though the counsel representing the petitioners said they are ready to argue the matter on the basis of reply filed in one of the cases, the Punjab government sought more time to file reply and sought adjournment..The Court noted that it had already earlier granted time to the State to file their reply after issuing notices. "We are pained to observe that the State Government and its various Departments do not file reply at the first instance in almost all the cases which are coming up before this Court. On the date fixed by the Court after notice, adjournments are requested by the learned State counsel for filing reply. There are several cases where replies have not been filed for years together by the State and its authorities, resulting in huge pendency of cases," the Court said..Considering the situation, the Court said it would not ignore the issue in cases where ex-parte stay orders have been passed. The interim stay orders continue to remain in force for years together affecting revenue of the State, it highlighted.Thus, the Court proposed that the State should have a "litigation policy" to address the issue."We, therefore, propose to direct the Government of Punjab to set up a litigation policy addressing the said malady in which there should be a Permanent Cell consisting of the responsible Officers of the State Government, who would examine whether the petitions should be filed in matters where the issues stand already finally adjudicated by this Court and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.".The Court adjourned the matter to November 25 and asked the Chief Secretary of Punjab to submit a report on or before the next date of warning.It further warned that if the pleadings are not completed by the State government and its authorities before the next date of hearing, a cost of ₹10 lakh will be imposed which will be recoverable from the salaries of the officers in charge of the concerned departments..Senior Advocate Radhika Suri and advocates Sandeep Goyal, Abhinav Narang, Aalok Jagga, Harkirat Jagdev and Sahil Lohan appeared for the petitioner.AAG Saurabh Kapoor appeared for the State..[Read Order]
