AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.S. Menon, J.—The Central Road Traffic Board, Trivandrum, is the 1st Respondent in this petition. Though the Hoard did not enter an appearance it was contacted by the Advocate General at our suggestion.
The Advocate General submits that the Board will dispose of the appeal on or before the 5-1-1956 and failing that; the stay order granted by the Board may stand vacated. The 2nd Respondent has no objection to an order being passed on those lines and the Petitioner is satisfied With such an order.
Order accordingly. No costs.
The Oillcc ''is directed to send back the file forthwith to the C. R. T. B., Trivandrum.
The practice of this Court has been for bodies like the Central Road Traffic Board to en-tor an appearance through counsel whenever they are impleaded in Writ Petitions unci assist the court at the hearing of the case. Very often the files arrive in this Court in miserable disarray, wth pages un-numbered. contents un-indcxed, and with neither mark nor flag to assist in the search for relevant material. On such occasions, whenever im-portanti questions of law came up for adjudication, and in the speeding-up of proceedings generally, the assistance rendered by the Government Pleaders appearing on their behalf by (Mr. Kumaran Achen till his retirement and by Mr. Rama Shenoi since then) has been decisive and invaluable.
We are not satisfied that there is any ivalid reason for the discontinuance of the practice.
In R.V. Kingston upon Hull Rent Tribunal. 1949 1 AllER 200 (A) "an application by a landlord for an order of certiorari to briny up and quash an order of a rent tribunal reducing the rent of certain premises without hearing evidence on behalf of the landlord was resisted by the tribunal, who appeared by counsel to oppose the application".
The order was granted and the landlord asked for costs against the tribunal. Lord Goddard, O. J., said:
We decide this case on the ground that the landlord had come here, at considerable expense to herself, to have the decision of the tribunal quashed, and the tribunal have appeared by counsel and have disputed her right to have an order for certiorari. On tlie whole, as the tribunal have appeared here and have contested this case, we think the landlord ought to have her costs.
In R.V. Peddington Rent Tribunal 1955 3 AllER 391 (B) counsel for the Minister submitted:
My Lords, I ask that the Minister''s costs should be paid by the tenants. This is not a mere case of challenging trie jurisdiction; it was said quite flatly that the tribunal had with less than proper frankness tried to cover up the reasons for their decision by their letter dated May 18, 1955". Lord Goddard. C.J., said:
"I do not think that the tenants ought to pay two sets of costs. If the landlords come forward to support the orders, I am not at all sure that the Minister is required to come forward, except he chooses to do so in the position of amicus curiae. It is true that the tribunal have to be served because their order has been challenged, and of course they can come forward if they like. In the present case we order only one set of costs, namely the Landlords.
9 In Ahmedalli Abdulhusein Kaka and Another Vs. M.D. Lalkaka and Others, Chagla, C. J., dealt with the question of practice as follows:
The question that has been raised at the Bails, what is the proper attitude that a Tribunal which is served with a rule in a petition filed should adopt, and what is the proper order for costs that the Court should make. I think we should lay down the rule of practice, that whenever a writ is sought challenging the order of a Tribunal, the Tribunal must always be a necessary party to the petition. It is difficult to understand how under any circumstances the Tribunal would not be a necessary party when the Petitioner wants the order of the Tribunal to be quashed or to be called in question. It is equally clear that all parties affected by that order should also be necessary parties to the petition. In this case the occupants of the building were vitally affected by the order of the learned Chief Judge; and it was not proper-for the Petitioners merely to have made the Tribunal a party to the petition, without making the occupants also parties to the petition. In England when a Tribunal is served with a rule issued by the Court on a petition, it is very rarely that the Tribunal shows cause; and this practice has grown up for obvious reasons. In a large majority of cases a Tribunal would not be concerned with the decision that the court would give on the petition. The Tribunal has made an order; it has done its duty by deciding a particular case before it; and it would be for the Court to consider whether its decision was with jurisdiction or without jurisdiction or whether the order, if made, was a competent horde or an incompetent order. Under no circumstance would a Tribunal be interested in the decision the matter; tout there may be cases where a devises of the Tribunal may be challenged on the ground which it would make necessary for the Tribunal to show cause against the rule issued and to contests the petition. For instance, it may be urge , that the Tribunal did not give notice to the parties, or that the parties were not properly heard a or that the Tribunal was influenced by an per motive in arriving at its decision. AH the J allegations would undoubtedly require a reply the Tribunal; and in these classes of cases it would be perfectly proper for the Tribunal to show cause! to appear at the hearing and to contest the petitions. If the Tribunal makes up its mind to show cause and to contest the petition, then it must take the risk as to any order that might be made with. regard to costs. If the petition succeeds, the Tribunal would have to pay the costs of the petition If the petition fails, the Petitioner would have pay the costs of the Tribunal. But we wish to '' courage the practice which we are told is growing up for Tribunals merely to appear and to subu to the orders of the Court. Every citizen in " sense of the term has to submit to the orderstQ the Court, and there is no reason why a Tribu should file its appearance in order to do someth which it will have to do, whether it appeared not. In this case. Mr. Rege has drawn our attejj tion to the fact that the Chief Judge submitted.! the orders of the Court and that he had appeare in order to make an affidavit to place all-the.]'' levant facts before the Court. Now, if the bunal is not contesting the petition, we see no: son why it should merely appear to file an affld vit to place all the relevant and material facts fore the court. If the court requires any facts information, it is always open to the Court to rect the Tribunal to file the necessary affidavit! and this can be done without the Tribunal appear( ing and submitting to the orders of the Courts..'' Therefore, in our opinion, as a matter of practice,; if the Tribunal appears in order to submit to ttllp orders of the Court, ordinarily the Tribunal shoulf not be given its costs. If the Tribunal wishesany reason to be present in Court and not to taWf Up a contentious attitude, then it must indulge , that luxury at its 6wn costs.
We see nothing in the decisions cit above which compel a departure from the pra tice adopted in this Court and they have been m$ tioned only because it was suggested at the B| that they might be the basis for the absence of C.R.T.B. If a statutory body is appearin the role of an amicus curiae no question of'' will arise and that is the role in which these bo have been appearing so far and the role in wh We would like them to continue to appear, will of course be circumstances in which they she appear not in such a role but as active contest'' and it is only in those cases that the question of costs will assume practical importance and ordernarily follow the result of the contest.
This is a case in which mala fides oaf part of the C. R. T. B., Trivandrum, has been all ed and even then they have not chosen to an appearance. On 2-12-1955 they wrote to Registrar as follows:
The available back file in this office is: warded herewith. I am also giving instructions! the Secretary. Road Traffic Board, Trichur, to ward all available files on the subject in his off to forward direct to you.
No file has been received from the Road Traffic . Board, Trichur and we are not in a position to say even now whether such files do exist or not.
The Registrar will forward a copy of this judgment to the O. R. T. B., Trivandrum, and all similar statutory bodies so that the old practice will be restored, and continued, until such time as other, directions are made in that behalf.