Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan, JJ., after considering repeated instances of robotic approach of endless adjournments being sought to file affidavit-in-reply in the present case, opined that the Court had to take a strict view of the matter particularly when the orders passed by the Court directing the State/respondents to file reply affidavit within specific timelines were not being complied with, unless there was a valid justification and an appropriate application was made in that regard seeking extension of time. The Court further opined that if there was no justification, it shall not permit the request either for an adjournment or to file affidavit-in-reply except on payment of costs.
The Court noted that in the present case, on 11-11-2022, counsel for respondents sought time to take instructions and file reply and thus, the proceedings were stood over to 15-12-2022. Thereafter, the proceedings were listed before the Court on 19-06-2023 when the order was passed issuing directions to file affidavit on or before 17-07-2023. The Court also noted that even on 02-01-2024, affidavit-in-reply was not filed, and respondents had sought further time to file affidavit-in-reply. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to 20-02-2024 and even on the date of the present order, adjournment was sought by the State and CIDCO to file affidavit-in-reply.
The Court stated that when for a period of one year an order passed by this Court directing respondents to file reply affidavit was not complied with, this Court had no alternative but to impose costs. Thus, the Court granted liberty to file affidavit-in-reply not later than 12-09-2024, subject to payment of cost of Rs 10,000 each to petitioners.
The Court stated that it passed the present order as the prior orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, setting out specific timelines to file affidavit-in-reply were totally neglected when they were required to be complied with. The Court further stated that non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court and affidavit in reply not being filed could not be dealt with differently while adjudicating the present proceeding.
The Court after considering repeated instances of such robotic approach of endless adjournments being sought to file affidavit-in-reply, opined that it was 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 were not being complied, unless there was a valid justification and an appropriate application was made in that regard seeking extension of time. If there was no justification, the Court shall not permit the request either for an adjournment or to file affidavit-in-reply except on payment of costs.
The Court directed that the present order should be forwarded by the AGP to the Advocate General and to the Government Pleader, so that with the modern IT facilities being available, a circular could be issued prescribing an effective procedure regarding communication of Court orders and a prompt action to file affidavit-in-reply, could be deviced, for the office of the Government Pleaders and more particularly when there were Court orders as this would ensure timely affidavits to be filed in compliance of the Court’s orders.
The Court opined that the present case was an example of a casual approach as when petitioners were pursuing proceedings before the Court, they were represented by the Advocates and were incurring costs/expenses on the litigation on every listing when an adjournment was sought. In the present case, the cost this Court had awarded could never compensate petitioners for the actual expenses which were being incurred by them in pursuing this petition. Such thought was completely overlooked and absent in the mind of respondents when repeated adjournments were sought to file affidavit-in-reply to drag the proceedings without any justification.
The Court thus opined that these aspects were certainly required to be borne in mind while granting adjournments, failing which instead of weeding out such mechanical unwarranted adjournments, the Court would nurture such culture which had already plagued the departments and in appropriate cases and when circumstances warrant, the Court would be required to adopt realistic approach on such issues and pass orders to award cost.
The matter would next be listed on 12-09-2024.
[Sudhakar Madhukar Patil v. The Collector, Thane, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2863, decided on 29-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Atul Damle, Senior Advocate with Prashant D. Patil.
For the Respondents: M.S. Bane, AGP; Ashutosh M. Kulkarni with Akshay R. Kulkarni.
