Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Amit Bhandari vs Bhim Sain Basi (Commissioner) Nct Of ... on 27 March, 2015
Bench: T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi
1
ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5276/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01/12/2014
in CCC No. 726/2013 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New
Delhi)
AMIT BHANDARI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BHIM SAIN BASI (COMMISSIONER) NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(with office report)
Date : 27/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Garvesh Kabra,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard.
Contempt Case (C) No.726 of 2013 and C.M. No.14528 of 2013 filed by the petitioner before the High Court of Delhi have been dismissed for non-prosecution in terms of an order dated 1st December, 2014 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court.
In the ordinary course, the petitioner may have been entitled to move an application for restoration of the said proceedings but what forces the petitioner to approach this Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Mahabir Singh Date: 2015.03.31 Court is a direction contained in the impugned order to the 14:28:22 IST Reason:
effect that no application for restoration shall be entertained by the Registry of the High Court without the 2 petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.25,000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a pre-deposit of Rs.25,000/- for moving an application for restoration is wholly unjustified especially when the petitioner is a wheel-chair bound person who usually appears in-person to argue the matters before the High Court and even before this Court. It was submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied in case he is allowed to move an application for restoration without the pre-deposit, ordered by the High Court.
The petitioner was unrepresented before the High Court on the date when the contempt proceedings, mentioned above, came up for hearing resulting in dismissal of the matter for non-prosecution. The High Court was indeed free to make such a dismissal order but the petitioner's right to seek a restoration upon furnishing of a cogent explanation for his non-appearance could not be taken away or encumbered by the court directing pre-deposit of costs. The position may be different if the High Court, while restoring the proceedings, awards costs against him. But that is not so. The High Court has even for entertaining an application for restoration directed pre-deposit of a sum of Rs.25,000/-. That part of the order in our view may not, in the facts and circumstances of case, be justified.
We, accordingly, direct that direction requiring a pre-deposit of Rs.25,000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee for moving an application for restoration, 3 shall stand deleted from the order passed by the High Court.
We make it clear that in case the High Court so chooses, it may, while passing an order on the application for restoration, direct deposit/payment of such amount of costs as it may otherwise deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
With the above observation, this special leave petition is disposed off.
(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER