Urban Improvement Trust vs Mohanlal
decided on 30.10.09 by Supreme Court of India, SLP No – 29852 of 2009
Judges – R.V. Raveendran and G. S. Singhvi.
DRT Solutions
Citation –
DRTS-016-Urban
Improvement Trust-vs Mohanlal-2009
http://www.drtsolutions.com/Urban-Improvement-Trust-Mohanlal.htm
We have now numbered the Judgments published on this web site as DRTS-00.
Accordingly all the judgments published so far have been numbered. The judgment
on this page is numbered as DRTS-016.
Comments by DRT Solutions
An Important Supreme Court Judgment of 2009 about Frivolous & Unjust Litigation
by Bureaucracy
Utility of this Judgment – There are many Frivolous and Unjust Litigations by
Banks & FIs in the name of Recovery or Public Funds where this Judgment becomes
very Useful
Conclusion
The bureaucracy unnecessarily indulges into frivolous and unjust litigations.
The Govt since 1957 is trying to curb this tendency but without any results.
This is also happening with the banks and the financial institutions. Whenever
one finds that the banks are unnecessarily indulges in such approach, this SC
judgment will be highly useful to put up before the judiciary. Further it
should be understood by the litigant borrowers and guarantors that on account of
such characteristics, the banks will fight upto the Supreme Court even if they
lose in the lower courts. Under such facts and circumstances, the counter-claim
will be of immense use as the interest on counter-claim will continue to go up
even if there is delay caused by the banks.
Comments
The full text of
the judgment is given below with important portions marked in Red, which are
self explanatory:-
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION[C] 29852 OF 2009 [CC NO.11768]
Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner .... Petitioner
Vs.
Mohan Lal .....Respondent
O R D E R
R. V. Raveendran J.
The petitioner before us is the Bikaner Urban Improvement Trust. It allotted a
Plot (A-303) measuring 450 sq.ft. under its Karni Nagar Scheme to the respondent
in the year 1991. Respondent paid the allotment price (lease premium) of
Rs.3,443/- in 1992 and took possession in 1997. In the year 1998, the
petitioner-Trust allotted to respondents and delivered possession of the
adjacent strip measuring 150 ft. 2. Thereafter, the Trust without notice to the
respondent and without resorting to any acquisition proceedings, laid a road in
the said plot. The layout map prepared and made available by the Trust in the
year 2002 did not show the existence of Plot A-303 or its adjoining strip.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent met the officers of the Trust and
complained to them. He also gave a written complaint seeking restoration of the
plot. As there was no response, he approached the District Consumer Forum in
2005, praying for restoration of the plot or for allotment of an alternative
site and award of damages of Rs.200,000/-. The District Forum disposed of the
complaint directing refund of the allotment price paid with interest at 9% per
annum. The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and
directed allotment of an alternative plot and also awarded Rs.5,000/- as
compensation. The National Commission dismissed the revision petition filed by
the petitioner Trust. Special leave is sought to challenge the said order of the
National Commission.
3. The Trust does not dispute any of the facts. It has no explanation to offer
for its negligence or highhanded action of taking over the allotted plot without
notice, acquisition, or consent. Nevertheless, the Trust challenges the relief
granted, on three technical grounds: (i) As the respondent was negligent in
protecting his possession and did not protest or complain when the Trust laid
the road in his plot, he is not entitled to any relief. 3 (ii) The action of
the Trust, even if it was an illegal encroachment, did not amount to `deficiency
in service' and therefore the respondent could not invoke the jurisdiction of
the forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (iii) The complaint was
barred by limitation as it was filed beyond two years from the occurrence of the
cause of action, and the respondent did not show sufficient cause for
condonation of delay. These contentions have been rejected. The decision of the
State Commission rejecting the above contentions is just and reasonable. The
National Commission was justified in not interfering with the said decision. We
are satisfied that no case is made out to grant special leave under Article 136
of the Constitution.
4.
It is a matter of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigation by
governments and statutory authorities are on the increase. Statutory Authorities
exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should be
responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor
act in a callous and highhanded manner. They can not behave like some private
litigants with profiteering motives. Nor can they resort to unjust enrichment.
They are expected to show remorse or regret when their officers act negligently
or in an overbearing manner. When glaring wrong acts by their officers is
brought to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the least
that is expected is restitution/restoration to the extent possible with
appropriate compensation. Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine grievances
of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires to be
corrected.
5.
This Court has repeatedly expressed the view that the governments and statutory
authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false,
frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of
justice.
We may refer to some of the decisions in this behalf.
(5.1) In Dilbagh Rai Jarry vs. Union of India [1973 (3) SCC 554] where this
Court extracted with approval, the following statement (from an earlier decision
of the Kerala High Court):
"The
State, under our Constitution, undertakes economic activities in a vast and
widening public sector and inevitably gets involved in disputes with private
individuals. But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary party
trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook; for
the State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence
and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just
liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide
such an opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern
on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is weak,
government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and
other lesser motivations which move private parties to fight in court. The
lay-out on litigation costs and executive time by the State and its agencies is
so staggering these days because of the large amount of litigation in which it
is involved that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume
of law suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into forensic show-downs
where a reasonable adjustment is feasible and ever offering to extinguish a
pending proceeding on just terms, giving the legal mentors of government some
initiative and authority in this behalf. I am not indulging in any judicial
homily but only echoing the dynamic national policy on State litigation evolved
at a Conference of Law Ministers of India way back in 1957.
(5.2) In Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International by its Proprietor v.
Venkatadri (Dead) by L.Rs. [(1979) 4 SCC 176] held:
"2...
It is high time that governments and public authorities adopt the practice of
not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims
of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a
government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to
decide it and if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the court, but
what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a
government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well-founded
and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting
such a claim has become unavailable...."
(5.3) In a three Judge Bench judgment of Bhag Singh & Ors. v. Union Territory of
Chandigarh through LAC, Chandigarh [(1985) 3 SCC 737]:
6 "3...
The State Government must do what is fair and just to the citizen and
should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax or revenue is received
or recovered without protest or where the State Government would otherwise be
irretrievably be prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate
and just claim of the citizen."
Unwarranted litigation by
governments and statutory authorities basically stem from the two general
baseless assumptions by their officers. They are:
(i)
All claims against the
government/statutory authorities should be viewed as illegal and should be
resisted and fought up to the highest court of the land.
(ii)
If taking a decision on an
issue could be avoided, then it is prudent not to decide the issue and let the
aggrieved party approach the Court and secures a decision.
The reluctance to take
decisions, or tendency to challenge all orders against them, is not the policy
of the governments or statutory authorities, but is attributable to some
officers who are responsible for taking decisions and/or officers in charge of
litigation. Their reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency to protect
themselves against any future accusations of wrong decision making, or worse, of
improper motives for any decision making. Unless their insecurity and fear is
addressed, officers will continue to pass on the responsibility of decision
making to courts and Tribunals.
The Central Government is now attempting to deal with this issue by formulating
realistic and practical norms for defending cases filed against the government
and for filing appeals and revisions against adverse decisions, thereby,
eliminating unnecessary litigation. But, it is not sufficient if the Central
Government alone undertakes such an exercise. The State Governments and the
statutory authorities, who have more litigations than the Central Government,
should also make genuine efforts to eliminate unnecessary litigation.
Vexatious and unnecessary litigation have been clogging the wheels of justice,
for too long making it difficult for courts and Tribunals to provide easy and
speedy access to justice to bona fide and needy litigants.
7. In this case, what is granted by the State Commission is the minimum relief
in the facts and circumstances, that is to direct allotment of an alternative
plot with a nominal compensation of Rs.5000/- But instead of remedying the
wrong, by complying with the decision of the Consumer fora, the Improvement
Trust is trying to brazen out its illegal act by contending that the allottee
should have been protested when it illegally laid the road in his plot. It has
persisted with its unreasonable and unjust stand by indulging in unnecessary
litigation by approaching the National Commission and then this Court.
The Trust should sensitise its officers to serve the public rather than justify
their dictatorial acts. It should avoid such an unnecessary litigation.
8. Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
J. (R. V. RAVEENDRAN)
J. (G. S. SINGHVI)
New Delhi; October 30, 2009.
