Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. To say the least, respondent No.2, which is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is a public institution has conducted itself of untrustworthiness out of its own mouth by resorting to litigation like a cantankerous litigants by raising technical plea.

15. Respondents No. 2 to 5 have acted irresponsibly though they were expected to litigate within expected judicial norms. Respondents No. 2 to 5 like belligerent litigants could not resist the temptation of litigation and have fought their legal battle as if it was a war. The battle otherwise is "uneven" as on one side is a public institution whereas on the other side is a .

private individual.

16. In such a case, one is bound to recall to mind the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilbagh Rai Jerry vs. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 130, wherein it was observed as under:-

"25. I feel impelled to make a few observations not on the merits but on governmental disposition to litigation, the present case being symptomatic of a serious deficiency.
In this country the State is the largest litigant to-day and the huge expenditure involved make a big draft on the public exchequer. In the contest of expanding dimensions of State activity and responsibility, is it unfair to expect finer sense and sensibility in its litigation policy, the absence of which, in the present case, has led the Railway callously and cantankerously to resist an action by its own employee a small man, by urging a mere technical plea which has been pursued right up to the summit court here and has been negatived in the judgment just pronounced. Instances of this type are legion as is evidenced by the fact that the Law Commission of India in a recent report on amendments to the Civil Procedure Code has suggested the deletion of Section 80, finding that wholesome provision hardly ever utilised by Government, and has gone further to provide a special procedure for government litigation to highlight the need for an activist policy of just settlement of claims where the State is a party. It is not right for a welfare State like ours to be Janus-faced, and while formulating the humanist project of legal aid to the poor, contest the claims of poor employees under it pleading limitation and the like. That the tendency is chronic flows from certain observations I .
8. In Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International, (1979) 4 SCC 176 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: (SCC p. 177, para 2):
"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...."
"32. Further, this Court has frowned upon the practice of the Government to raise technical pleas to defeat the rights of the citizens in Madras Port Trust vs. Hymanshu International (1979) 4 SCC 176, wherein it was opined that it is about 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. Para 2 from the said case reads thus :- (SCC p.177) "2. We do not think that this is a fit case where we should proceed to determine whether the claim of the respondent was barred by Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act (2 of 1905). The plea of limitation based on this section is one which the court always looks upon with disfavour and it is unfortunate that a public authority like the Port Trust should, in all morality and justice, take up such a plea to defeat a just claim of the citizen. It is high time that governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for .