Punjab and Haryana High Court directs Punjab government to formulate litigation policy to reduce pendency
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made clear its intent to direct Punjab to come up with a litigation policy, while admonishing the state government for its repeated delays in filing replies to court cases, at times for years together.
Highlighting a broader issue, a Division Bench asserted that the central and the state governments formed the country’s biggest litigants, especially at the high court level. Their non-cooperation and tendency to seek adjournments for filing of a reply, on account of change of lawyers’ panel or non-availability of officer in-charge, was rampant.
The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth also warned the government of Rs 10 lakh costs in case of its failure to complete its pleadings in a bunch of 37 petitions by the next hearing. The amount would be recoverable from the salaries of the officers responsible, the Bench asserted.
As the petitions listed specifically for final arguments came up before the Bench, the petitioners’ counsel expressed willingness to argue the matter based on a reply filed in one of the cases. But the State counsel sought adjournment on the ground that they wanted to file a reply to the matters.
The Bench asserted it was pained to observe that the state government and its various departments did not file reply at the first instance in almost all the cases coming up before the court and adjournments were sought for filing reply on the date fixed after issuance of notice. In several cases replies had not been filed for years together by the state and its authorities resulting in huge pendency of cases.
The Bench added it time and again felt handicapped in deciding matters essentially relating to revenue following non-filing of replies. In several cases, last opportunity to file replies was given, failing which, the officer in-charge was required to explain why costs should not be imposed upon him.
Such directions were apparently hard, but were solely to elicit replies for final adjudication of matters. The Bench added the pendency of cases in the high court was a malady and the governments were the main contributors. Even in cases where ex-parte stay orders had been passed, the filing of replies was belated and adjournments were repeatedly sought. The interim stay orders remained in force for years together affecting the state’s revenue.
The Bench added it, as such, proposed to direct the state to set up a litigation policy for addressing the malady, encompassing the setting up of a permanent cell comprising responsible officers. They would examine “whether the petitions should be filed in matters where the issues stand already finally adjudicated by this court and upheld by the Supreme Court. At the same time, accountability for non-filing of replies at the first instance should also be directed in order to prevent the tendency of lawyers from seeking adjournment,” the Bench asserted, while directing the forwarding of the order to the Chief Secretary for compliance and submission of a report.
