Punjab & Haryana High Court Chastises IAS Officer For Taking Court Proceedings "Too Lightly"

A single bench of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur noted that it is not the first time that the Respondent officer, J. Ganesan, had failed to present himself in the hearings. The Court stated that even in the last hearing of this case, no one from the Respondent's side was present.

The Bench was hearing a contempt petition filed by one Sarita Mehta, for non-compliance of its dated September 1, 2008, passed in civil writ petition no. 6830/2007.

The Bench observed that when the Respondent officer did not appear before it on the last hearing, the Court was forced to issue an order that the Respondent, along with his Counsel, should appear on 16^th December, 2020 (Wednesday). However, this order was also not complied with.

When this was pointed out to Respondent's counsel, he submitted that Ganesan will appear for virtual hearing from his office.

The Court noted that this was firstly not in spirit of the Court's order and secondly, despite this submission, the Respondent was not available from his office when the matter was called.

In this backdrop the Court remarked, "The matter is being taken too lightly."

Due such callous attitude of the Respondent, the Court expressed its inclination to issue bailable warrants against him, but refrained from doing so and granted one last opportunity to him.

"At this stage, just when this Court was out to issue bailable warrants for his appearance, learned counsel appearing on his behalf pleaded that one last opportunity be granted to comply with the order. The argument that there is delay does not help because the order requires to be complied with, as the same is a continuous loss," stated the bench.

The Court abstained from issuing bailable warrants against the IAS officer and directed him to be present for the next hearing, which is set for 14^th January, 2021. The Court further added that if the Respondent is not present for the next hearing, then he would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioners by means of a demand draft.

Related News:

Delay-'Courts Are Doctors Of Bleeding Rights': Madras High Court Cautions Bar & Litigants To Honor Court Appointments

In a similar case pertaining to non-appearance of parties leading to unnecessary adjournments, the Madras High Court held that the Bar and the litigants have the responsibility to abide by the dates given by the Courts. A single bench of Justice N. Seshasayee observed that every time the Bar or the litigants are given a posting for their hearings, the Court is giving them appointments. They should ensure that these appointments are not wasted.

Case Title: Sarita Mehta & Ors. v. J. Ganesan & Anr.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order