Karnataka High Court
Dr. M.M. Nirmala vs New Mangalore Port Trust on 18 November, 1994
Equivalent citations: ILR1994KAR3770, 1995(4)KARLJ660
ORDER
Saldanha, J
1. A point of procedure has been raised by the respondents learned Counsel which concerns the conduct of Writ Petitions in this High Court. Under the scheme prevalent as of now, which is evolved as a matter of practice and which is in keeping with the Rules framed by the High Court for the conduct of Writ Petitions, the Court often orders notice to the respondents at the initial stage of hearing of the Petition. This is obviously with the intention of hearing the other side even on the question of issue of Rule Nisi but more importantly, for purposes of ascertaining whether the matter can be disposed of at that stage itself without going into the procedure of formally admitting the Petition and setting it down for hearing. This is basically governed by the objective of expediency because the High Court has taken serious notice of the mounting arrears and of the fact that a relief granted at a belated stage may hardly provide succour to the aggrieved litigant Moreover, there is a whole class of cases wherein timely Justice can be dispensed after a quick assessment of the dispute and tedious formalities of filing lengthy pleadings etc. can be curtailed. There is a saving of time, expenditure and above all, disposal without delay.
2. The High Courts in this Country have progressively evolved various norms geared towards expeditious disposal and for purposes of speeding up processes. It is undoubtedly with the assistance and co-operation of the Bar that these steps are being implemented. There are instances when the service of notice can be dispensed with if the corrective action is not going to prejudice the respondents or in other cases where that course of action is necessary. Where it is considered essential to serve notice on the respondents, there exists a pre-supposition that the respondents will appear and that they will either show cause or produce whatever material they so desire when they appear. The object of issuing notice is often misconceived as a licence to protract the proceedings as is evident from the fact that on the first date of hearing after service, a statement is made by the Lawyer on behalf of the respondents that "instructions have not been received" or that "objections are to be filed and that the same are not ready". The records of this High Court indicate that in only 0.05% of the Cases, the respondents are ready on the first date of hearing after service of notice and it is unfortunate that in only 0.25% of the Cases, the Statement of Objections is filed and served on the other side when the matter is listed after service. The service of notice itself drags on for weeks and months and often years with the matter coming up before the Court for all sorts of reasons, the most common being that the petitioner who has obtained the desired interim orders has neither paid the process fee nor complied with the other procedural requirements for service of notice on the respondents. Despite these delays, even after the service is complete, the records indicate that in 80% of the Cases the Statement of Objections is filed after atleast three adjournments and in 45% of the cases more than six months after the service of notice on the respondents. This has accounted for multiple hearings of each Petition and an abnormally large backlog of Writ Petitions all of which are at the preliminary stage of hearing. An examination of this pending matter indicates that in 85% of these Petitions, the matter could have been disposed of within five minutes had the two sides been ready with their material when the matter was listed on the first occasion. The ultimate sufferer in this state of affairs is the litigant as the entire system is unnecessarily choked up.
3. As far as this High Court is concerned, at the preliminary stage when notice is issued and it is reasonably certain that the matter can be disposed of after hearing the two parties, the Petition is listed in the 'B' Group. Under the Rules framed by the High Court and in particular Rule 13 as amended, the Court after issuance of notice which is in Form No. iii(a) as prescribed by the Rules, places the Petition in what is known as the 'B' group, the understanding being that the matter is set down for disposal at this stage itself. This is a system followed by this High Court and it is an accepted position, that both the Bar and the litigants are aware of the fact that the case is such as requires expeditious and immediate disposal. This is a Petition, which is filed by a lady Doctor wherein a grievance has been made that certain disciplinary proceedings instituted against her have been unjustifiably delayed, and it was heard by the Court on 1.3.94 and emergent notice was issued. Such notice is indicative of the fact that emergency action is necessary in the case. Three months later, on 2.6.94 learned Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 asked for four weeks' time to file the Statement of Objections whereupon interim relief was granted and the enquiry proceedings were stayed. The Petition thereafter appeared on board three and half months later, on 21.9.94 to be exact, in the 'B' group when this Court after hearing the petitioner's learned Counsel disposed of the Petition granting certain limited reliefs which only directed the respondents to complete the enquiry by 30.11.94 at the latest. On that date, the Statement of Objections filed on behalf of the respondents was taken into account though their learned Advocate was not present. It was an enquiry at the instance of the Management and though the petitioner had prayed for quashing of the enquiry, that relief was not granted and the only direction was that the enquiry be expedited. Such an order would not prejudice the respondents in the least. Had it been necessary to hear arguments on behalf of the respondents, the matter would certainly have been adjourned for that purpose, but in view of the fact that a totally innocuous direction was being issued, the matter was disposed of. Thereafter, on 29th September 1994 the learned Advocate representing respondents 1 and 2 filed a Memo in the office in which he stated that he could not be present on 21.9.94 as he had not received the list and he found fault with the fact that the Petition was finally disposed of. According to him, since Rule Nisi had not been issued, the Petition could not have been disposed of finally and he therefore had the matter placed on board for being spoken to.
4. The Petition was accordingly listed by the office once again and the respondents learned Counsel found fault with the procedure followed by the Court in having disposed of the Petition. According to him, if the respondents were unrepresented or if the Court despite what was pointed out in the Statement of Objections was of the view that some reliefs ought to be granted to the petitioner, it was only open to the Court to issue Rule Nisi but the Court was totally precluded from allowing the Petition even if the reliefs were inconsequential, I was rather surprised by the fact that the petitioner's Advocate seriously contended that his interpretation of Rule 13 and the notice issued in Form No. iii only permitted the Court to admit the Petition at the highest but not to dispose of it. I can understand a situation where it is pointed out that the Court overlooked something material or that a party desires to place something of consequence before the Court and requests for reconsideration on the ground that a miscarriage of Justice has occurred. In such situations, a review or reconsideration or modification of an order is perfectly justified. Similarly, where an application is made on the ground that a matter has been dismissed for default resulting in serious injury or damage, a Court will always reopen a matter. At a period of time when the Courts are struggling to come to grips with the arrears and where every minute of Judicial time is precious, it is unfortunate that issues are being made for the sake of making an issue. When the matter was placed on board for being spoken to, the respondents had nothing to say with regard to the earlier order dated 21.9.94 or how even the slightest degree of prejudice was caused to them as a result, of that order. No arguments were advanced with regard to the case on merits but a solemn grievance was made with regard to the fact that the Court had disposed of the matter instead of issuing Rule Nisi and keeping the matter pending in which case, the matter would have remained pending here for atleast another ten years. There was not even a semblance of an apology for the non-appearance on 21.9.94 nor was the Court favoured with the courtesy of an explanation as to why this had happened. The technical plea that was canvassed was that the age old procedure of mechanically admitting the Petition if it qualified for any reliefs ought to have been followed and that, an expeditious disposal on 21.9.94 was wrong. It is most unfortunate, to say the least, that situations of this type arise, and when an evaluation is done as to why the arrears are piling up, it is instances of this type that provide the answers.
5. On merits, nothing has been pointed out whereby any variation or modification is required in the order dated 21.9.94. In fact, there is neither a review application nor an I.A. on record but just a hand-written Memo filed in the office. In the course of the hearing also, nothing was pointed out on merits and therefore, the order dated 21.9.94 stands as it is.
6. With regard to the procedure adopted, the position that emerges within the framework of the Rules is that in keeping with the provisions of Rule 13(b), there is a clear provision that issue of Rule Nisi may be dispensed with and the matter may be heard apd disposed of on merits. There is also a clear provision in the notice issued that if the respondents failed to appear, that the matter will be heard and disposed of on merits in their absence. In the light of this position, an elementary scrutiny of the Rules would have indicated that the placement of the matter on board for being spoken to itself was not only unnecessary but unwarranted. It is rather tragic, that within the time consumed for the unnecessary rehearing of this matter, atleast five other needy litigations would have been taken up and disposed of. Whereas on the one hand, serious efforts are being made to inject speed into the process of disposals, it is sad that efforts continue in some quarters to impede these efforts/procedures.