'Pendency In HC Is A Malady To Which Govts Are The Main Contributors': P&H High Court Calls For Policy To Ensure Accountability Of Govt Officers

The Central and the State Governments together form the biggest litigants in the country, especially at the High Court level, said the Punjab & Haryana High Court while flagging the contribution of the Government in the pendency of cases.

In the case, the Court also warned the Punjab Government that it would impose a cost of Rs.10 lakh if a reply is not filed before the next date and the same will be recoverable from the salary of the Officers in charge of the concerned Departments.

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth said, "the pendency of cases in the High court is a malady to which, the Governments are the main contributories. This Court would not ignore the aspect that in cases where ex-parte stay orders have been passed, even in those cases the process of filing of reply is belated by seeking adjournments time and again. Even the interim stay orders continued to remain in force for years together affecting revenue of the State."

The Court directed the Government of Punjab to set up a litigation policy addressing the "malady" of pendency of cases, in which there should be a Permanent Cell consisting of the responsible Officers of the State Government, who 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, it added.

These observations were made while hearing a batch of 37 petitions against various government departments in Punjab which were filed in November 2023 and pending response since then.

The division bench said, "We are pained to observe that the State Government and its various Departments do not file reply at the first instance in almost all the cases which are coming up before this Court."

Adding that, on the date fixed by the Court after notice, adjournments are requested by the State counsel for filing reply, the Court highlighted that, "There are several cases where replies have not been filed for years together by the State and its authorities, resulting in huge pendency of cases."                                                

While deferring the matter to November 11, the Court directed the Chief Secretary, Punjab to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing.

Title: M/S CHAHAL SPINTEX PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-28067-2023 and CWP-5297-2024).

Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate with Mr. Harkirat Jagdev, Advocate and Mr. Sahil Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-27298-2023).

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab.

Click here to read/download the order