HC imposes Rs 50,000 costs on litigant over unscrupulous plea

Srinagar, Aug 1: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on a litigant for filing unscrupulous and dishonest pleadings to discourage the improper use of constitutional remedies.

“It is trite law that a party invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of a constitutional court is expected to approach the Court with clean hands, full candour, and utmost good faith,” a bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal said in its order.

The bench made the observation while dismissing a plea that had sought a declaration that the petitioner, SK Trakroo held a valid and subsisting allotment of a plot at Rawalpora Housing Colony Srinagar , now known as Sanat Nagar, and that the subsequent auction and allotment of the plot in favour of A F Mir as illegal.

The authorities including housing and urban development department had refuted the petitioner’s claim that the original allotment was cancelled as early as 2001, and his documents in this regard were forged.

The Court underscored that there were sufficient reasons not only to dismiss the instant writ petition due to misconduct and concealment of material facts but also to levy exemplary costs as a way to express its disapproval and to discourage the improper use of constitutional remedies.

It imposed Rs 50,000 as costs on the petitioner “in a view to curb such abuse of the judicial process, to deter litigants from engaging in unscrupulous and dishonest pleadings, and to prevent recurrence of such malpractice.”

The court ordered that the amount be deposited before the Registry of the Court within two weeks and thereafter the same would be released in favour of Mir to compensate for the hardship and inconvenience caused to him.

Prior to these directions, the court observed that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the filing and dismissal of a prior civil suit on the same cause of action, and approached the High Court with a calculated attempt to re-agitate already rejected claims by misleading this constitutional forum.

While the court noted that the concealment was neither innocent nor incidental, it said the same was a conscious attempt to secure relief by misusing the process of law.