Karnataka High Court
Sri. S. Y. Watawati S/O Yellappa vs High Court Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO.
WRIT PETITION NOS. 107845-107847 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.S.Y.WATAWATI S/O. YELLAPPA,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.V.M.SHEELAVANT, ADV.)
AND:
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 01.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SHARAD MAGADUM, ADV. FOR
SRI.HEMANT CHANDANAGOUDAR, ADV.)
2
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION EXPUNGING ADVERSE REMARKS MADE IN
THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2018 IN W.P. NOS.103381-
103391 OF 2017 VIDE ANNEXURE - A, IN THE ORDER
DATED 13.08.2018 IN W.P. NOS.111922-112027 OF 2017
VIDE ANNEXURE - B AND IN THE ORDER DATED
21.08.2018 IN W.P. NO.111551 OF 2017 VIDE ANNEXURE
- C AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
*****
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J.,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is a Judicial Officer of the 1995 batch. He assumed charge as the Additional Registrar General (hereinafter called as ARG), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, on 19.06.2017. In certain writ petitions which were pending for considerations before the learned Single Judge, various remarks were passed against him with regard to his functioning etc., as an ARG of the High Court Bench at Dharwad. Seeking to set aside these 3 observations made by the learned Single Judge, the instant petitions are filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that none of the observations made by the learned Single Judge require to be accepted. The ARG requires to deal with matters regarding postings, movements of files etc., In the process of doing so, he has functioned diligently. That the remarks made against him are unwarranted. That they are not supported by the material or facts involved. That the remarks made against him would unnecessarily harm his career, for no fault of his.
3. Respondent's counsel submits that the learned Single Judge having considered the acts and omissions committed by the petitioner, has rightly passed the remarks. The same are borne out from the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, he contends that no interference is called for.
4. Heard learned counsels.
4
5. The observations made by the learned Single Judge are as follows:
In the order dated 02.08.2018, passed in W.P.Nos.103381-103391 of 2017 at Annexure-A:
"3. Additional Registrar General in his report has only reproduced the replies / explanations given by his colleagues without looking in to them for justifiable reasons or acceptability of reasons shown?"
In the order dated 13.08.2018, passed in W.P.Nos.111922-112027 of 2017 at Annexure-B :
"In such an event, the Additional Registrar General is expected and required to submit Their Lordships about necessity of posting of those matters where emergent notices have been ordered by the Court."
"Secondly: It also shows lack of supervision by the supervisory cadre in the office. A regular supervision at all supervisory level by the Additional Registrar General would ensure that no files would be left out from being posted before the Court for an appropriate orders at an appropriate time. A periodical inspection or a query, at least by the concerned supervisory 5 staff and by the higher hierarchy in the office administration by the Additional Registrar General would have not resulted in several such matters, where emergent notices have been ordered by this Court, not being posted before the Court for several months or years. One such observation was also been made by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.103381-103391 of 2017 dated 02.08.2018 wherein also it has been observed that in many of the matters, the same excuses are being forwarded by the registry. As such, the submission given by the Additional Registrar General and the alleged explanation given by the staff below him are stereo type and mechanical in nature, only to cover up their laches or omissions."
In the order dated 21.08.2018, passed in W.P.No.111551 of 2017 at Annexure-C:
"The Additional Registrar General to note the observations made in the above said other two writ petitions vide the orders mentioned above, since the very same observation hold good in the present case also and see that, no such lapses or omissions are repeated."6
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the ARG and other officers were directed to furnish their reply. They have submitted the same. The same have also been enclosed along with the writ petitions. We have considered the same. The ARG has submitted his report dated 20.09.2017 in MFA No.22572 of 2010. The same is produced herewith vide Annexure-E. Therein, it is stated that MFA No.22572 of 2010 was put up on 21.02.2015 for final hearing. Thereafter, only two days, namely, 26.02.2015 and 27.02.2015 were remaining for change of the said roster at Dharwad Bench. The Bench had instructed to list only date given matters and court moved matters, for final hearing. Therefore, the said MFA was not put up. Later on, the sitting list changed. The Bench had instructed to post date given matters and moved matters only.
7. Yet another report has been furnished by the ARG which is produced herewith as Annexure-H pertaining 7 to Writ Petition Nos.103381-103391 of 2017. The First Division Assistant has submitted an explanation which is a part of the report. Therein, he has stated that he has been allotted several number of classifications, such as, LA, LB, LR, KLR, KLRA, KVOA, APMC, TAX, KDR, SC/ST, MV, HRC, CINEMA, EDN, ULC. It also included Division Bench matters pertaining to S-KAT, S-CAT, CCC, WPHC, GM- matters and Education matters. There was also a direction by the learned Judges having the said roster, to post only date given matters and memo moved matters. That around 80 to 90 memos were being moved everyday. Therefore, the files wherein the orders like post next week, two weeks etc., were not sent to the Board Branch.
8. In view of the direction of the learned Judge, replies of identical nature were also furnished by the ARG and the other concerned officials. That considering the said replies, the learned Single Judge accepted some of the replies and rejected the others.
8
9. Various issues require to be considered when any strictures or observations are made against the ARG or the staff of the High Court. Firstly, is the fact that the number of Judges are inadequate. Even the staff are inadequate. The Judges who have been assigned to work at Dharwad Bench, are not sufficient to consider the pending cases. Therefore, there is immense pressure on the learned Judges.
10. Secondly, priority in considering the cases have to be looked into. In considering such priority of cases, the individual Judges give instructions in the best administration of justice, keeping in mind the priority of the cases wherein immediate relief is called for. It is under these circumstances, that orders of a general nature to post matters after one week, two weeks etc., are not considered, as a matter of priority, by the concerned Judges. It is so, in view of the huge number of memos for posting that are filed on a day to day basis. So also, the cases where specific dates are given for posting the 9 matters. Therefore, the learned Judges monitor the work of their respective Courts.
11. Thirdly, to find fault with the registry for not posting the matters when they are adjourned for a week or so, is improper, when the report of the ARG as well as the officials would clearly indicate that the matters were not to be listed, in view of the specific directions issued by the concerned Judges. The instructions of the learned Judges cannot be questioned in this manner. It is for the concerned Judges to regulate their Court. If there are instructions not to post certain matters, it is entirely within their jurisdiction to do so. The ARG or the officials cannot be blamed for it, nor can one expect any written evidence with regard to the instructions. Even before the Principal Bench as well as the Bench at Kalaburagi, instructions of the like nature are being issued for the proper administration of justice. That the matters of utmost priority are being taken up in view of the shortage of judges as well as the staff. This has to be considered 10 before any action is sought to be taken against the Registrar or the officials. The instructions given by the learned Judges cannot be ignored by the ARG or the staff. They require to be complied with. Therefore, to hold that the ARG and the officials are solely responsible for not posting these matters and passing strictures against them, is wholly improper.
12. Fourthly, is the fact that none of the advocates have any grievance with regard to the posting of cases. They are aware of the fact situation in every Court. They know the pressure on the learned Judges. This is also because, the advocates move large number of memos for the matters to be taken up out of turn. Therefore, if there was any matter which the advocate wants to be taken up, necessarily a memo would be moved and the matter would be listed. Therefore, this is also another reason as to why the strictures cannot be accepted.
13. Under these circumstances, for the learned Single Judge to hold that the ARG has deliberately not 11 posted the matters and that he has failed to supervise his colleagues and that he has failed to post the matters is improper.
14. We are of the considered view that none of the strictures or observations made are sustainable. Keeping in mind the paucity of Judges and the staff and the urgency of listing the matters of absolute urgency as instructed by the learned Judges, the ARG or the staff cannot be faulted for the same. Therefore, none of the observations could be sustained. Even though certain observations that have been made, may amount to being advisory in nature, we are of the view that in the background and context with which they were made, the same would result in being construed as strictures. Hence, we find that they also require to be set aside.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions are allowed. The observations made by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.103381-103391 of 2017 dated 12 02.08.2018, vide Annexure-A, in the order dated 13.08.2018 in W.P.Nos.111922-112027 of 2017, vide Annexure-B and in the order dated 21.08.2018 in W.P.No.111551 of 2017, vide Annexure-C are hereby set aside. All other strictures and observations not specifically referred herein, are also set aside.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE
MSR