"Interest of litigants paramount:" Bombay High Court rejects plea challenging approval to establish court in Wai

Reiterating that the role of the courts is only to aid in the delivery of justice for the litigant, the Bombay High Court rejected a plea filed by an advocates' association challenging the approval granted by the High Court for establishing a court in Wai, located in Satara district of Maharashtra [The Satara District Bar Association Satara v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.].A Bench of Justices GS Patel and Madhav Jamdar emphatically asserted in the order that the interest of the litigants was of paramount importance. "...It is the interest of the litigants that is paramount and the role of the Court and all those who enable its functioning, whether Judges or lawyers, are meant to assist the delivery of justice to the litigant," the order stated.Having said so, the Bench emphasized on the two aspects of delivery of justice, which was speedy, timely delivery of justice and physical access to justice. It reasoned,"The establishment of a Court in a close proximity cannot really be said to be an undesirable thing to litigants who are in the vicinity of the proposed Court. There is no reason why a litigant should, on the Petitioners’ representation be required to travel 35 kms from Wai to Satara rather than have a Court in Wai itself…".These findings came in the order rejecting the petition filed by the Satara District Bar Association challenging the approval granted by the administrative side of the Bombay High Court to establish a court of an Additional District Judge and a Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Wai.The association stated that it had asked the High Court to reconsider the decision on the ground that the approval to establish a new court had been given only based on the caseload pendency.The petitioners claimed that criteria such as buildings, infrastructure, distance, transportation and convenience of litigants had not been considered. .There is no reason why a litigant should, on the Petitioners’ representation be required to travel 35 kms from Wai to Satara rather than have a Court in Wai itself; or to travel 55 kms from Khandala to Satara instead of 27 kms from Khandala to Wai or 60 kms from Mahabaleshwar to Satara rather than 33 kms from Mahabaleshwar to Wai.Bombay High Court.The petition raised grievance against the non-disclosure by the Public information Officer of notings by the judges on the court establishment proposal. Opining that there was an element of confidentiality in the notings, the Bench held that the same are only transitory and tentative views."These should under no circumstances be allowed to be brought into public domain or be made the subject of any controversy. The last thing that is desirable is a litigation calling into question the candid views on an administrative issue of any judge. And, finally, this is critical: the High Court administration speaks with one voice," the Bench highlighted. .On perusal of documents filed before it, the Court deduced that the administration had in fact taken into account other factors such as adequacy of accommodation for judicial officers in Wai. "To say, therefore, that the High Court considered nothing except pendency of cases is factually incorrect and is demonstrated to be incorrect on the record itself," the Bench held. .Senior Advocate Anil Anturkar with Advocates Vijay Patil and Siddharth Karpe appeared for the district association. Senior Advocate Dr. Milind Sathe with Advocate Aumkar Joshi appeared for the High Court administration. Additional Government Pleader SS Panchpor represented the State..[Read order]