Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner, a senior citizen against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) under Article 227, challenging the acceptance of a written statement by the MCD, which was filed after a delay of 220 days (about 7 months) calling the delay excessive and unjustified. Manoj Jain, J., imposed cost of Rs. 20,000 to be paid to the petitioner by MCD for filing written statement belatedly.
The Court stated that “MCD is a big Government Department and this civic agency must be handling innumerable matters but that does not give any automatic handle to MCD to file written statement as per its own whims and fancies.”
The petitioner’s grievance emanates from the Trial Court’s decision to permit the MCD to file its written statement despite the significant delay. Counsel for MCD admitted that there was a delay but contended it was 166 days (about 5 and a half months), not 220 days (about 7 months). The delay was attributed to the relevant file being untraceable in the Department.
Counsel for the petitioner during the hearing, conceded that rather than seeking further relief, they would be satisfied if reasonable costs were imposed on the MCD due to the undue delay caused to a senior citizen’s case. It was further argued that the MCD’s intention was merely to delay the proceedings, which had already been prolonged due to the non-cooperation of the MCD.
The Court acknowledged that the written statement had been filed on 25-02-2023 emphasizing that while the MCD, being a large government department handling numerous matters, might face occasional delays, this did not justify filing written statements as per its own discretion. The Court noted that specified timelines for filing written statements should generally be adhered to and only under exceptional circumstances should delays be condoned.
The Court observed that while the time for filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is not mandatory, Courts have the discretion to condone delays. However, such discretion should be exercised judiciously, and if delays are excessive or unjustified, the other party should be compensated with costs.
The Court concluded that in this case, the Trial Court had accepted the written statement without imposing any costs. The High Court, considering the undue delay and the petitioner’s status as a senior citizen, found it appropriate to impose costs on the MCD.
Thus, the Court disposed of the petition with the direction that the MCD should pay costs of Rs. 20,000 to the petitioner for the delayed filing of the written statement. This amount was to be paid on 16-10-2024, the next date fixed before the Trial Court. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with the imposition of costs serving as a compensatory measure for the petitioner.
[Virender Kumar Bhardwaj v MCD, CM(M) 2834/2024, decided on 09-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Pawan Kapoor, Advocate for petitioner
Ms. Anshula L. Bakhru, Advocate for respondent
