Imposition of exemplary costs not a matter of discretion: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 28

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today ruled that imposition of exemplary costs was not a matter of discretion. It was a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system was not exploited by litigants using the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice.

The ruling came as a Division Bench of Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Justice Vivek Puri imposed Rs1-lakh costs on an “unscrupulous litigant”, who continue with “unauthorised possession of a public premise” in Sector 37 even though the lease was cancelled almost four decades back.

What court observed

The Bench said it was constrained to observe that the petitioner was an unscrupulous litigant. In spite of resumption proceedings attaining finality, she continued to be in possession of the public property and derive the benefit from the resumed property by collecting rent from a bank and other tenants.

The Bench further observed that the imposition of exemplary costs was a necessary instrument required to be deployed to weed out and prevent the filing of frivolous cases. The Bench was hearing a petition filed by the leaseholder against the Chandigarh Administration and other respondents. She was, among other things, seeking the quashing of order dated April 7, 1982, cancelling the lease. Directions were also sought for quashing another order dated December 6, 1989, declining her revision petition.

The Bench observed the petitioner was leased out the Sector 37 site in an open auction for 99 years on October 28, 1979, at a premium of Rs1, 72,500. The Estate Officer cancelled the lease vide the impugned order, after the petitioner failed to deposit the instalments. The UT Chief Administrator, vide order dated August 3, 1984, accepted her appeal and restored the lease, subject to her depositing the entire outstanding amount within 30 days.

But the petitioner preferred a revision petition instead of availing of the concession granted by the appellate authority. After the plea was dismissed, proceedings were initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act and notice dated August 18, 1999, was issued by the Estate Officer.

“The propensity of the petitioner to continue in unauthorised possession of public premise can be clearly seen on account of her creating a Trust in the name of `Dispute Vest Settlement Trust’ and then approaching `ADR Arbitral institute’. Arbitral proceedings were sought to be initiated by the petitioner in the absence of any agreement between the parties. The initiation of any such proceedings was without any sanctity in law…,” the Bench asserted

Before parting with the case, the Bench added it would have no hesitation in holding that the instant petition at the hands of the petitioner was a complete abuse of the process of law. The case will now come up for hearing in November second week for compliance.