Skip to main content

WP (C) No. 8348 / 2009, WP (C) 6731 / 2012 BHC

Observations in WP (C) No. 8348 / 2009 – date of judgment – 25.01.2010

We have come across several writ petitions in which similar relief is claimed not only in respect of inaction of the authority dealing with land acquisition proceedings, but even other departments, such as Cooperative Department, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Education Department, Social Welfare Department, Zilla Parishads and the like. We find that substantial number of writ petitions, such as the present petition, which are filed in this Court, are avoidable, if the officials of the State were to discharge their statutory obligation of deciding the representation within a reasonable time. In the present case, petitioner has submitted her application almost one year back i.e. 5th January, 2009.

It is unnecessary to underscore that the applicant would have legitimate expectation of early redressal of her grievance. Indubitably, expeditious decision on the representation or application is a right ingrained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even when no period of limitation to dispose of representation / application is prescribed under statute, it has to be done expeditiously within a reasonable time (see Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. V/s State of Haryana - [ (1988) 3 S.C.C., 478 ]. That is the duty cast upon the officials, for, existence of power to decide such application / representation is coupled with duty to decide the same expeditiously.

It will not be out of place to restate the legal position expounded by the Division Bench of this Court in a recent decision in the case of Vaishali Atmaram Suryawanshi V/s the State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.7055/2009 decided on 16th December, 2009. Notably, due to the inaction of the Authority (officials), not only the citizen has to suffer the agony of uncertainty and delayed justice, but at the same time the State exchequer is incurred on legal proceedings, which is wholly avoidable.

In our view, the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra should issue appropriate instructions or circular to all the concerned officials of the respective departments, not only to one referred to above, but a general circular, instructing all the Departments that if the officials are required to dispose of any application or representation under the provisions of law, they shall do so within a reasonable time and in any case not later than the time specified in the said circular, failing which the concerned official will be held personally responsible and may be proceeded for appropriate Departmental action including for dereliction of duty. The Government Pleader assures to convey the sentiments of the Court to the Chief Secretary for taking appropriate action, as may be advised, and report compliance to the Court within four weeks from today.


Observations in WP (C) 6731 / 2012 – date of decision – 21.12.2012

Para 1: The grievance made in this Petition is that the Collector, Pune has failed to decide the representation made by the Petitioner on 28th June, 2011. We are appalled to notice the laxity and indifference of the Collector in not expediting the process of deciding the subject representation even after the service of present Writ Petition. Admittedly, no decision has been communicated to the Petitioner till date. Institution or pendency of this Petition was certainly not an impediment for taking the decision. As a matter of fact, any prudent officer would expedite the process as soon as he is served with the copy of the Petition making grievance against him about his inaction. The attitude of the officer in not deciding the representation, even after service of this Writ Petition, is to say the least deplorable.

Para 4: Copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary, with a hope that the Chief Secretary would cause to issue instructions/circular, before 19th January, 2013, to all concerned departments and officers that, if any representation is made, the same should be considered and final decision thereon must be taken within the period specified in the earlier Government Circular No. SKN – 02/2010/P. No. 29/A2 dated 16th February, 2010 and the decision so taken should be communicated to the party concerned within the same time.

Further, if any Petition is filed before the Court, making grievance about the inaction of the Authority, at least upon service of copy of such Petition, the concerned officer must dispose of the representation within four weeks from receipt of notice of such proceedings and communicate the decision to the concerned party as well as report that fact to the office of the Government Pleader for bringing it to the notice of the Court whenever the matter is taken up for hearing. It must be made amply clear that failure to comply with this condition may entail in initiating departmental action against the concerned officer and serious view may be taken in the matter.

Para 5: This we are required to observe because, on any given Court working day, the Court is called upon to deal with substantial number of Writ Petitions, in respect of the subject assigned to the concerned Division Bench, directing the Authorities to dispose of the representations within specified time. This litigation is certainly avoidable, if the representations were to be decided in a time bound manner by the Authority and including to communicate the decision so taken to the concerned parties soon thereafter.

Circular No. SKN-02/2010 //PK-29/A-2 dated 16.02.2010. Also GR dated 18.01.2013.



Sandeep Jalan

Advocate

Law Referencer: https://www.vakeelkanumber.com/

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fraud / Misleading the Courts

AIR 2007 SC 1546 Para 21:  Now, it is well settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed; "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal". Para 22:  It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first Court or by the final Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. Para 23:  In the leading case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. V/s. Beasley, 1956 1 AllER 341, Lord Denning observed: "No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud."
9 comments
Read more

Prescribed procedure must be followed

2015 (3) SCC 624 Para 22:  Procedural norms, technicalities and processal law evolve after years of empirical experience, and to ignore them or give them short shrift inevitably defeats justice. ……..Laws of procedure have picturesquely been referred to as handmaidens to justice, but this does not mean that they can be wantonly ignored because, if so done, a miscarriage of justice inevitably and inexorably ensues. Statutory law and processal law are two sides of the judicial drachma, each being the obverse of the other. In the case in hand, had the Tenant diligently filed an appeal against the decree at least in respect of O.S. 5/78, the legal conundrum that has manifested itself and exhausted so much judicial time, would not have arisen at all. 2014 (2) SCC 401 Para 34: There is yet an uncontroverted legal principle that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention o
Post a Comment
Read more

Arbitrariness

The act of “arbitrariness” may ordinarily mean, exercise of powers or exercise of discretion, according to one whims and personal choices, taking into considerations the irrelevant factors, not taking into considerations the factors which should have been considered whilst taking decisions or whilst acting, or acting in disregard of express statutory mandate or acting in disregard of legal principles or in disregard of any principle or logic, common sense or fairness. Arbitrariness is violence to common sense of a prudent man. When discretion is assumed absolute, man has always suffered. The Rule of law prohibits arbitrary action and also makes it liable to be invalidated. The expression “Rule of Law” may have varied dimensions, and the most apt explanation to this expression appears to be, “The People have an absolute / unqualified right to be Ruled / governed/ regulated by Law, and not by individual whims and fancies”. This is also in fact and precisely the mandate of Article 1
Post a Comment
Read more