SC imposes cost of ₹15,000 on UP govt. for wastage of judicial time
[ad_1]
A Bench mentioned that there was not even the “courtesy” of setting out the dates as to how the recordsdata had moved.
The Supreme Court has imposed a cost of ₹15,000 on the Uttar Pradesh authorities for “wastage of judicial time” in a case wherein the State had filed an attraction within the apex courtroom after a delay of over 500 days.
Noting the delay within the submitting of the attraction, a Bench headed by Justice S.K. Kaul mentioned that there was not even the “courtesy” of setting out the dates as to how the recordsdata had moved.
“The special leave petition is delayed by 576 days (535 days as the senior counsel contends). There is not even the courtesy of setting out the dates as to how the files have moved, possibly because we have been directing responsibility to be fixed and costs to be recovered from such persons who are responsible for the delay,” the Bench, additionally comprising justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, mentioned in its December 1 order.
The Bench mentioned, “We dismiss the special leave petition on the ground of delay, but for wastage of judicial time, consider appropriate to burden the petitioner with costs of ₹15,000 to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Welfare Fund…”
It mentioned that the cost be recovered from the officers accountable for the delay within the submitting of the attraction within the high courtroom.
“Thus, we are once again faced with a matter so as to obtain a certificate of dismissal and such cases we have categorised as ‘certificate cases’, brought before this court only to put a quietus to the matter and not fix the responsibility on the officers who are responsible for the situation,” the Bench famous.
The apex courtroom was listening to an attraction filed by the State towards the October 2018 order of a division bench of the Allahabad High Court.
The division bench of the excessive courtroom had dismissed the State’s attraction towards the January 2018 order handed by a single-judge bench, which had directed the division involved to regularise the service of a person.
You have reached your restrict for free articles this month.
