Srinagar, June 21: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar has come down hard on litigants who resort to frivolous litigation to waste the Court’s time and public money besides causing interference with the purity of the administration of law.
“No litigant has a right to unlimited drought upon the Court’s time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. However, access to justice should not be exercised as a license to file petition after petition,” order of a bench comprising M S Latif Member (J) and Prasant Kumar, Member (A) said.
Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court, the tribunal held that filing successive, misconceived and frivolous petitions interferes with the purity of the administration of law and such litigants must be dealt with heavy hand.
The court’s remarks came in response to the submission by the counsel representing the government that the filing of successive petitions amounted to abuse of the process of Court. Opposing the related plea, the counsel said the petitioner deserved to be saddled with heavy costs.
“We find that in effect and substance the relief is the same in all the three petitions. One filed in the year 2024 and the earlier two in which the petitioner seeks withdrawal filed in the year 2020. The petitioner in the O.A.No.35/2024 has concealed the fact that two earlier petitions are pending and prima facie guilty of making false declarations,” the tribunal said.
“A perusal of the relief claimed in all the three petitions by and large is the same. However, by adopting a crafty method of drafting, the petitioner has tried to escape the rigor of filing successive petitions,” the tribunal observed, while hearing the plea “claiming the same relief”.
The tribunal noted that the petitioner had considered himself to be a valid licensee to use, misuse and abuse the process of Court by filing successive petitions to try his luck. “Such a practice needs to be deprecated”.
“…We are inclined to impose exemplary costs on the petitioner for filing repeated petitions, in effect and substance, praying for the same relief. But, in the peculiar facts, we are taking a lenient view and in future the petitioner will not repeat this kind of conduct, we are refraining ourselves from imposing such costs,” the bench said.
It however allowed the application seeking withdrawal of the name of the petitioner from the array of the petitioners.