State Of Uttarakhand And Others vs Mamata Chauhan

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State Government and Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent and, with their consent, the Special Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The State of Uttarakhand and the Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, to the limited extent he imposed costs of Rs.25,000/- to be saddled on the second-appellant for failing to file a counter-affidavit.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the writ petition was listed for the first time on 12.04.2019 for admission, and the learned Single Judge had granted three weeks' time for a counter affidavit to be filed and fixed the matter to 21.05.2019; though the matter was listed on that day, it could not be taken up; it was, thereafter, listed on 13.08.2019 and, since no counter affidavit was filed, the opportunity to file the counter affidavit was forfeited, and the matter was posted for hearing on 26.08.2019; and an application was filed to recall the order dated 13.08.2019 in the last week of August, 2019.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that, on several occasions, counter affidavits, on behalf of the State Government, was not filed within time, which ultimately wasted the valuable time of the Court. While recalling the order dated 13.08.2019, the second-respondent-Dr. R.K. Pandey, Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare was found guilty of not discharging his obligations and duties in filing counter-affidavit on time; and was imposed costs of Rs.25,000/-.

In the affidavit now filed before us, it is stated that Dr. R.K. Pandey took charge of the post of Director General, Medical Health only on 01.08.2019, and the said order dated 13.08.2019 was passed within 12 days of his joining duties; he is also due to retire from service on 30.09.2019; and imposition of costs of Rs.25,000/- on him, on the eve of his retirement, was wholly inequitable.

While we have no quarrel with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that failure on the part of the State Government to file counter-affidavits on time is among the reasons for increase in pendency of cases, and in needless wastage of Court's time, costs could only have been imposed, that too of a sum of Rs.25,000/-, if the person, against whom costs were imposed, was in fact guilty of not filing the counter affidavit on time. In the present case, the second appellant had joined the post of Director-General, Medical Health only on 01.08.2019, just 12 days before the order dated 13.08.2019 was passed whereby their right to file a counter affidavit was forfeited. Imposition of costs of Rs.25,000/- on a government servant, on the verge of his retirement i.e. on 30.09.2019, would also be inequitable. We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to set aside the order under appeal to the limited extent that costs of Rs.25,000/- was imposed on the second-appellant more so, as the counter affidavit had been filed by the second-appellant, along with the application seeking recall of the order dated 13.08.2019.

The Special Appeal is disposed of, accordingly. No costs.