Supreme Court Recalls Cost of Rs 50K Imposed On 2 Lawyers For Filing Plea To Allow Vehicles To Run Till End Of Registered Life

While granting the relief, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha in their order said, "Every lawyer is an officer of court and when he appears he is required to discharge his duties by keeping the same in mind. We therefore recall the order imposing a cost of Rs 50k."

Urging the bench to recall the cost imposed, the lawyers while tendering their apology submitted that it was their first appearance and that they were not aware of this procedure.

On May 17, 2022, the bench of Justices LN Rao, BR Gavai and AS Bopanna in their order said, "We find that the present petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law. At least a lawyer practicing before this Court is expected to know that a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, cannot be filed to seek any reliefs which are contrary to the orders passed by this Court. In spite of the forewarning, the petitioner in person continued to argue the matter. We therefore, passed an order dismissing the petition."

While the counsel had commenced his arguments, the bench had forewarned him that the reliefs sought were against the various orders passed by the Top Court as well as NGT, but the counsel somehow had convinced the bench to grant him 8 minutes. Although the bench had acceded to the counsel's request but had warned him of imposing a cost of one lakh per minute in case the bench did not find any substance in the plea.

Post the bench passing an order of dismissing the petition, since the counsel continued to argue the impossible, the bench in their order said, "We could have very well imposed the cost of rupees 8 lakhs while dismissing the petition, which we indicated at the beginning of the hearing. However, we do not propose to be harsh to an ill-advised parties in person who fortunately or unfortunately are lawyers. We are therefore, inclined to take a lenient view of the matter." Court had also warned the petitioners that if they would indulge into such sort of misadventurism hereinafter, the Court would be required to take a stern view of the matter.