SC slams AP Govt for unnecessarily pursuing a “petty matter” before it [Read Judgment]
It was, in our view, a sheer abuse of process on the part of the State to pursue a matter in filing a misconceived appeal against an interim order, which we do not approve. It is unfortunate that a genuine claim of the respondents was not satisfied by the State for such a long time, the Bench said.
The Supreme Court, has criticised the Andhra Pradesh Government for unnecessarily pursuing a “pity matter”(petty) in an appeal before it. Division Bench comprising of Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Ashok Bhushan, slapped a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the state by observing that the state has committed sheer abuse of process of court by filing a ‘misconceived’ appeal‘.
The Executing Court had found that the State was liable to pay to Land owners, whose land was acquired by the state, a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards interest due to delayed payment of decreetal sum and had also issued a warrant of attachment against the State properties. The state did not appeal against this order, but rather preferred an application requesting the Court to recall the order, which was refused. The High Court upheld the order of the executing Court. The State appealed to Apex Court.
The bench observed “ the State unnecessarily pursued this pity matter to this Court in this appeal, which does not involve any arguable point either on facts or in law nor it involves any point of public importance and nor it involves any substantial money claim. What was involved was only the calculation of payment of interest on the decreetal sum for a particular period. In this Court also, learned counsel was unable to show any kind of illegality or perversity in the said calculation made by the executing Court while working out the liability of the State in paying Rs.50,000/- towards interest. Therefore, it was, in our view, a sheer abuse of process on the part of the State to pursue a matter in filing a misconceived appeal against an interim order, which we do not approve. It is unfortunate that a genuine claim of the respondents was not satisfied by the State for such a long time.”
Read the Judgment here.