"No More Adjournments For Filing Affidavits, Will Impose Costs For Seeking Extension Of Time Without Justification": Bombay HC To State

The Bombay High Court recently made it clear that henceforth it will not adjourn matters and criticised the 'robotic approach' especially of the Maharashtra Government and other authorities for seeking adjournments on the ground of filing affidavits-in-reply.

A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somashekar Sundaresan said henceforth it will impose costs on advocates, especially those representing the State or its authorities, to seek adjournments for filing affidavits.

The bench passed the 'stringent' order while imposing costs of Rs 10,000 on the State and the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), for failing to file their reply in a matter, last year, despite the High Court giving them several 'final chances.' 

In the order passed on August 29, the bench led by Justice Kulkarni imposed the costs while giving 'one last chance' for the respondent authorities to file their replies in the matter. It took into account the fact that despite 'specific' timelines set by other benches in the matter for the authorities to file their replies, none bothered to file one and even did not seek an extension of time to file their say.

"As if it is a routine 'mantra' the counsel for the respondent authorities are instructed to again seek time to file reply, which depicts a very sorry state-of-affairs on the part of the concerned department. Considering repeated instances of such 'robotic approach' of endless adjournments being sought to file reply affidavits, henceforth we are inclined to take a strict view of the matter more particularly when the orders passed by the Court directing the State/respondents to file reply affidavit within specific timelines are not being complied, unless there is a valid justification and an appropriate application is made in that regard seeking extension of time. In the event there is no justification, we shall not permit the request either for an adjournment or to file reply affidavits except on payment of costs," the judges made it clear.

The bench expressed doubt if the orders passed by the court were even communicated to the concerned department. It, therefore, ordered the government counsel to forward the instant order to Advocate General Birendra Saraf, Government Pleaders Priyabhushan Kakade (Appellate Side) Poornima Kantharia (Original Side).

"....so that with the modern IT facilities being available, a circular can be issued prescribing an effective procedure in regard to communication of Court orders and a prompt action to file reply affidavits, can be devised, for the office of the Government Pleaders (Appellate & Original Sides) and more particularly when there are Court orders. This would ensure timely affidavits to be filed in compliance of the Court's orders," the bench opined..

The bench further observed that it has been accepted to be quite easy and/or casual for the respondents to seek time to file affidavits, when it ought not to be so when specific orders are passed by the Court.

"The present case is one such example of a casual approach," the bench remarked, adding that, "This also for the reason that when the petitioners are pursuing proceedings before the Court, they are represented by the Advocates and are incurring costs / expenses on the litigation on every possible listing when an adjournment is sought."

The cost awarded in the present matter, the judges stressed, can never compensate the petitioners for the actual expenses which are being incurred by the petitioner in pursuing the petition.

"Such thought is completely overlooked and absent in the mind of the respondents when repeated adjournments are sought to file reply affidavits so to drag the proceedings without any justification. In fact the State Government is incurring enormous expenditure in paying legal fees in hundreds of matters on such unwarranted adjournments being sought, solely for the fault of the concerned department not providing timely instructions to file reply affidavits," the bench underscored.

The bench added that the situation of endless adjournments on such counts works against the interest of both parties.

"In such circumstances, we also need to ponder as to henceforth should we adopt a realistic approach to compensate the petitioner for a reasonable cost of an adjournment and more particularly, when Senior Counsel are briefed and a high cost of litigation is incurred by the litigant?" the bench stated.

With these observations, the bench adjourned the hearing till September 12.

Appearance:

Senior Advocate Atul Damle along with Advocate Prashant Patil appeared for the Petitioners.

Assistant Government Pleader MS Bane represented the State.

Advocates Ashutosh Kulkarni and Akshay Kulkarni represented CIDCO.

Case Title: Sudhakar Madhukar Patil vs The Collector, Thane

Click Here To Read/Download Order.