SC imposes Rs 1 lakh fine on Uttar Pradesh government for filing an appeal after 1,173 days
The state argued that the delay was caused due to the Covid-19 pandemic, amongst other reasons.
The Supreme Court has imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government for filing an appeal against a case after a delay of 1,173 days, Live Law reported on Tuesday.
In a judgement passed on December 12, a bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy said that litigation cannot be taken “so casually”.
“We are left with no doubt that such matters are filed in a cursory manner to somehow seek a certification of dismissal by the Supreme Court,” the bench said, according to PTI. “We thoroughly disapprove of such a practice and feel necessary to impose costs on the petitioners.”
The case pertained to a challenge filed by the state of Uttar Pradesh and others against a 2019 verdict passed by the Allahabad High Court, which had increased the compensation given to a Jaunpur-based woman for her land that was acquired by the government.
The Uttar Pradesh government had filed the petition on October 31, 2022. The state argued that the delay was caused due to the Covid-19 pandemic and also added that the Supreme Court had suspended the limitation period till March 31, 2022, according to Live Law.
The limitation period is the maximum time limit within which a case is to be filed.
In its verdict, the Supreme Court, however, refused to accept the reasons cited by the government.
“A cursory reference to the pandemic situation is baseless for the reason that no such situation was prevalent on the date of passing of the order by the High Court and at least seven months thereafter,” the bench said.
The court also said that a paragraph in the application filed by the Uttar Pradesh government mentioned the particulars wrong, reported PTI.
“Obviously, such incorrect particulars have occurred because of preparation of the application in a casual manner, essentially with reproduction or copying of the contents from any other application,” it said.
The counsel appearing for the petitioners had admitted that the application has not been filed with all the relevant and correct particulars and sought more time to do so.
