Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Needless Hypersensitivity Not Expected Of Judicial Officers, Should Maintain Composure & Poise: Delhi High Court Sets Aside ₹5 Lacs Cost

Nupur Thapliyal
5 May 2022 5:30 AM GMT
Needless Hypersensitivity Not Expected Of Judicial Officers, Should Maintain Composure & Poise: Delhi High Court Sets Aside ₹5 Lacs Cost
x

Observing that needless hypersensitivity is not expected of Judicial Officers who are expected at all times to maintain composure and poise, the Delhi High Court has set aside Rs. 5 lacs cost imposed by a Additional Rent Controller with a 'word of advice'.Unequivocally expressing its discomfiture at the manner in which the order was passed, Justice C Hari Shankar said:"In order that the career...

Observing that needless hypersensitivity is not expected of Judicial Officers who are expected at all times to maintain composure and poise, the Delhi High Court has set aside Rs. 5 lacs cost imposed by a Additional Rent Controller with a 'word of advice'.

Unequivocally expressing its discomfiture at the manner in which the order was passed, Justice C Hari Shankar said:

"In order that the career of the learned ARC, who appears to be a fairly young Judicial Officer, is not prejudiced, I deem it appropriate to close this matter by setting aside the impugned order insofar as it imposes costs of ₹ 5 lacs to the petitioner, with a word of advice to the learned ARC to ensure that, in future, a great degree of temperance is exhibited by him in discharge of his judicial functions."

"Unwarranted and needless hypersensitivity is not expected of Judicial Officers, who are expected, at all times to maintain composure and poise, befitting the office they hold."

The plea challenged the imposition of costs of ₹ 5 lacs by the Additional Rent Controller for "misusing the process of law and causing inconvenience to the Government machinery".

An eviction order was passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents by the ARC, the Predecessor in office of the officer, who passed the impugned order, on 4th November, 2019. The petitioner had the. applied for execution of the said order.

Warrants of possession were directed to be issued by the ARC on 22nd March, 2022. Consequent thereupon, the Bailiff visited the premises of the respondents on 11th April, 2022. When the Bailiff reached the premises of the respondents, Respondent no. 2 informed the Bailiff that the petitioner had, in writing, allowed him two months' time to vacate the premises. Noting this fact, the Bailiff filed his report before the Court of the ARC.

The ARC had, in the impugned order dated 21st April, 2022, recorded in no uncertain terms and without mincing words, his displeasure at the fact that, having got warrants of possession issued by the ARC, because of which the Bailiff had to visit the premises of the respondents in order to ensure their eviction, the petitioner nonetheless granted the respondents two months' time to vacate.

The ARC had characterized the case as "a classic case of abuse of process of law and abuse of Government machinery by the DH with an intention to harass and intimidate the JDs".

Perusing the impugned order, the Court was of the view that the same was completely unwarranted on facts and in law.

"Frankly, I am unable to understand the reason for the learned ARC having expressed the sentiments that he has chosen to express in the impugned order. There was no justification whatsoever, in my view, for the learned ARC to take exception at all, much less such serious exception, to the fact that the petitioner had fairly agreed to allow the respondents to continue in the tenanted premises for two more months," the Court said.

The Court opined that it was indeed ironical that an eminently fair attitude, exhibited by the petitioner, aroused the wrath of the ARC and invited, on the head of the petitioner, costs of ₹ 5 lacs.

"This petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Miscellaneous application is also disposed of," the Court ordered.

Case Title: SUCHIT GUPTA v. GAURAV SAINI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 408

Click Here To Read Order 


Next Story