List steps to prevent avoidable cases: HC asks Punjab, Haryana

Chandigarh, April 6

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today asked the states of Punjab and Haryana to spell out the steps initiated for averting needless legal proceedings. Calling for Haryana’s litigation policy, Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal of the High Court directed the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit on the steps being taken by the state government to prevent unwarranted litigation often due to the casual attitude of its officers.

The Chief Secretary was also asked to specify whether action was taken against such officers. Justice Grewal also directed the Punjab Advocate-General to apprise the court regarding the steps taken by the State of Punjab to prevent avoidable litigation.

State largest litigant

The dockets of the courts are clogged and the state is the largest litigant. If the officers of the state take due care and caution while passing orders at least a part of the litigation could be avoided. —Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, Punjab & Haryana High Court

The direction on preventing avoidable litigation by Justice Grewal came less than a fortnight after Haryana Chief Secretary Sanjeev Kaushal — earlier posted as the Additional Chief Secretary, Cooperation — was directed to be present in the court to explain why an order was passed by him in a service matter without notice or opportunity of hearing. The officer was also asked to explain why he should not be burdened with the litigation costs.

Appearing before the Bench pursuant to the order passed on March 28, Kaushal referred to an affidavit filed by him before submitting that an error had indeed taken place. He also regretted the error and assured the court that such an error would not take place henceforth. The case will now come up on April 28 for further hearing. The Chief Secretary’s personal appearance, however, has been exempted.

The matter was brought to Justice Grewal’s notice after a petition was filed by Himmat Khan of Ferozepur Jhirka in Nuh district of Haryana. He was seeking directions for setting aside order dated January 21 passed by the ACS (cooperation). His contention was that the impugned order was passed by the Revisional Authority-Additional Chief Secretary without notice or hearing and he was dismissed from service.