SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Registry is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu, Advocate General of the State of Tamil Nadu and the Additional/Deputy Solicitor General, High Court of Madras/Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, for issuing necessary instructions to all the officers concerned, to follow Rule 24(2) in true spirit, to enable this Court to dispose the matters as expeditiously as possible. Post on 01.09.2023. 22.08.2023 abr BATTU DEVANAND, J. W.M.P.(MD)No.16754 of 2023 in W.P.(MD) No.22151 of 2016 22.08.2023

by ·

W.M.P.(MD)No.16754 of 2023 in

W.P.(MD) No.22151 of 2016

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

This petition is filed by the Secretary to Government, Revenue

Department; District Collector, Madurai District; Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti; and Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, who are respondents 1 and 3 to 5 in W.P.(MD) No.22151 of 2016 seeking leave of this Court for filing of counter affidavit in the Writ Petition.

  1. The Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction upon the 4th respondent, RDO, Usilampatti to count 50% of prior service of regularization as qualified service along with regular service of the petitioner’s husband for grant of enhanced family pension at the rate of 50% last pay drawn and to issue the family pension on the basis of total service rendered by her husband, revised pension, arrears, pensionary and other monetary benefits accrued thereon to the petitioner from the date of eligibility of family pension within a short date that may be fixed by this

Court.

  1. Upon perusing the averments made in the affidavit filed

along with the petition, this Court noticed the reason stated in the affidavit for non-filing of the counter affidavit for a long period of 7½ years is that “due to bifurcation of Revenue Divisional Office, Usilampatti, some files were not properly handed over to the Revenue Divisional Office, Thirumangalam and also due to Covid-19 pandemic”.

  1. It appears from the case record that one Mr.T.S.Mohammed

Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader took notice on 18.11.2016 on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition.

  1. As per Rule 24(2) of the Madras High Court Writ Rules, the

respondents/opposite parties in writ petitions, who intend to file counteraffidavits, have to file it within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of the notices. If they intend to file counter-affidavit beyond the stipulated period of eight weeks, they have to seek leave of the Court by filing appropriate application before the Court.

  1. All the litigant public and Advocates shall scrupulously

follow the Rules framed by the High Court in this regard.

  1. The Hon’ble Apex Court in various cases, time and again

held that “the right of speedy trial to be part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.

  1. In my opinion, the proposition of law is applicable to hear all

branches of cases including Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

  1. In the present case, the respondents did not file any counter-

affidavit for more than 7½ years and now they come up with counteraffidavit along with the leave application. The reasons stated in the affidavit filed along with this application also establish the negligence and carelessness of the respondents in the writ petition. The reason for inordinate, unexplained and negligent delay in filing counter-affidavit is not stated except stating that Revenue Division is bifurcated. This Court noticed that some Writ Petitions are pending for 15 years in which

counters are not filed till date.

  1. In the considered opinion of this Court, apart from various

other reasons for the long pendency of the cases before this Court, the non-filing of counter affidavits by the respondents is one among the reasons. In most of these pending cases, it is seen that whenever cases are listed, the usual practice is to adjourn the cases on the ground that “counter is not filed” and “counsel for respondents sought time to file counter”. Timely justice is the right of every litigant and speedy justice is the obligation of every functionary of the judicial system. Long pendency of cases in High Court has become a matter of serious concern. The prolonging pendency of cases, changes the priorities of the litigant towards their life. Therefore, speedy disposal should be recognized as an urgent need of the present judicial system in order to decide the fate of litigants. The huge delay will create a sense of frustration among the

litigants.

  1. The Central Government, the State Government and its

instrumentalities are the biggest litigants in the country. Around 80% of all cases are either contested by the State or appealed by it. Some appropriate steps have to be taken to regain the faith of the common man towards this institution. There should be a time limit for filing counters and unlimited time should not be provided for filing counters. The officers of the Government and its instrumentalities should be made more accountable for disposal of long pendency of cases.

  1. For the above mentioned reasons, this Court is of the

opinion it is appropriate to send a message to all the litigants, who are respondents and particularly to the Officers of State and Central Government and its instrumentalities, who are responsible for non-filing of counter affidavits after receipt of the notice, which is causing abnormal delay in disposal of the cases by this Court.

  1. Accordingly, W.M.P.(MD) No.16754 of 2023 is allowed

granting leave to the petitioners herein/respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 5 in the Writ Petition to file counter-affidavit on condition of payment of costs of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only/-) to be paid to the Registrar (Judicial) (Kalaignar Centenary Library Madurai) (Account No.

7567821433, Indian Bank, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Branch, Madurai) within a period of one week from today and file proof of payment of costs before this Court by 01.09.2023.  The costs paid by the petitioners be recovered from the officers (whether they are in service or retired from the service) responsible for the delay in filing the counteraffidavit.

  1. Registry is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Chief

Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu, Advocate General of the

State of Tamil Nadu and the Additional/Deputy Solicitor General, High Court of Madras/Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, for issuing necessary instructions to all the officers concerned, to follow Rule 24(2) in true spirit, to enable this Court to dispose the matters as expeditiously as possible.

  1. Post on 01.09.2023.

22.08.2023

abr

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

W.M.P.(MD)No.16754 of 2023 in W.P.(MD) No.22151 of 2016

22.08.2023

You may also like...