In Salem
Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2005) 6 SCC
344, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, among other things, has observed and directed –
“…The
Governments, government departments or statutory authorities are defendants in
a large number of Cases pending in various courts in the country. Judicial
notice can be taken of the fact that in a large number of cases either the
notice is not replied to or in the few cases where a reply is sent, it is
generally vague and evasive. It not only gives rise to avoidable litigation but
also results in heavy expenses and costs to the exchequer as well.
A proper reply
can result in reduction of litigation between the State and the citizens. In
case a proper reply is sent, either the claim in the notice may be admitted or
the area of controversy curtailed, or the citizen may be satisfied on knowing
the stand of the State.
Having regard to
the existing state of affairs, we direct all Governments, Central or State or
other authorities concerned, whenever any statute requires service of notice as
a condition precedent for filing of suit or other proceedings against it, to
nominate, within a period of three months, an officer who shall be made
responsible to ensure that replies to notices under Section 80 or similar
provisions are sent within the period stipulated in a particular legislation.
The replies
shall be sent after due application of mind. Despite, if the court finds that
either the notice has not been replied to or the reply is evasive and vague and
has been sent without proper application of mind, the court shall ordinarily
award heavy costs against the Government and direct it to take appropriate
action against the officer concerned including recovery of costs from him.”.
Sandeep
Jalan
Advocate
Law
Referencer: https://www.vakeelkanumber.com/
Comments
Post a Comment