The Supreme Court rejects UP’s appeal at a cost of Rs 1 lakh, stating that state litigation cannot be treated lightly.
The supreme court stated that it has no doubt that such things are submitted in a “cursory way” so the petitions are rejected while dismissing the argument and imposing a cost of Rs 1 lakh.
Additionally, it criticised the state government for the “casual manner” in which the application for a delay pardon was submitted.
“There is no question in our minds that such matters are hastily filed in an effort to get a certification of dismissal by the Supreme Court. A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy stated, “We fully reject such a practise and find essential to impose costs on the petitioners.
The high court’s decision in May 2019 that increased the amount of compensation paid to a woman from Jaunpur for her land that the government had acquired had been contested by the state of Uttar Pradesh and others.
The top court stated in its decision on December 12 that the petition submitted by the state was 1,173 days past its statute of limitations. It entered the application for a delay pardon into the record.
Referring to the application’s contents, the bench noted that a cursory glance would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was not even a “semblance of cause, much less adequate cause” to excuse the petition’s lengthy delay of 1,173 days.
It stated that the petition was submitted on October 31, 2022, in opposition to the ruling made in May 2019.
The special leave petition (SLP) could not be lodged right away because to the Covid-19 pandemic, among other things, according to the application asking for a delay pardon.
Because there was no such scenario at the time the high court’s ruling was issued and for at least seven months subsequently, the bench argued that any fleeting mention of the pandemic situation was unfounded.
Furthermore, the suspended statute of limitations due to the pandemic expired on March 31, 2022, and even after that date, there was no need for an excessive delay, the statement continued.
The court pointed to a paragraph in the application and stated the date of decision and particulars of the appeal were absolutely irrelevant to the current issue, noting that it is “disturbing” to notice that the application was prepared in a careless manner.
According to the statement, “Clearly, such inaccurate particulars have occurred because of the application’s development in a casual manner, essentially with reproduction or copying of the contents from any other application.”
The bench took note that the petitioners’ attorney recognised that not all pertinent and accurate information was included in the application and asked for more time to file a stronger affidavit.
“Given all the relevant facts of this case, we have rejected such a request for filing a better affidavit. The State litigation, in our opinion, cannot be treated so carelessly that the application filed to justify a ridiculous delay of 1,173 days was incomplete and contained inaccurate information, the bench said.
It stated, “Therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected and this petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1,000,000 to be deposited by the petitioner-State in the welfare fund of the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association within four weeks from today.”
The bench left it open for the state to collect the costs from the officers in charge of submitting the petition after an “inexplicable delay” that lacked a valid reason and any supporting evidence.
