Only Error In Impugned Order Was Not Imposing Cost, We Correct That Error: SC While Imposing Rs 10000 Cost On Advocate Over Frivolous PIL
The Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition challenging an order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court has observed, “The only error we find in the impugned order is that it does not consider it appropriate to impose cost. We correct that error”. The Court upon query had found that the petitioner- Girish Chandra Kholiya in the present matter was an Advocate and imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 for filing a frivolous plea where the issue could hardly qualify as a subject matter of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
In the present matter, the petitioner before the High Court had filed a PIL stating it to be allegedly in public interest, challenging a one-year extension of a Chief Engineer, granted through an order dated December 29, 2022. The High Court in the impugned order on not being satisfied with the locus standi of the petitioner was of the opinion that it is a matter that remains exclusively with the employee. Consequentially, the High Court had dismissed the matter.
Accordingly, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia directed, “The Special Leave Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister’s Welfare Fund within four weeks”.
The bench further observed, “We cautioned the counsel at the inception that this petition filed before the High Court can hardly be classified as a PIL and the only issue is the extension of a Chief Engineer who held the office under the authority and it is not a case of quo warranto. On our query, he states that the petitioner is an Advocate”.
AOR Mohit Paul appeared for the petitioner.
In the matter before the Court, the counsel appearing for the petitioner had strongly submitted that such extension ought not to be granted. While the Apex Court was of the opinion that such issue can hardly be the subject matter of a PIL.
It is pertinent to note that a bench comprising Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal of the Uttarakhand High Court at the very outset were not satisfied with the petitioner’s locus standi. It was of the opinion that no person who could have been affected by the extension to claim to the post of Chief Engineer, Level I, Director (Operations) of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., has ever approached the Court.
“…Moreover, it is for the employer to decide – whether, or not, to grant extension to an employee, who is retiring, depending upon his or her work and usefulness. The Office Memo granting the extension of one year to respondent No. 3 records the reasons for grant of extension, namely, that Revamped Distribution Sector Scheme (RDSS) under the State in the Corporation is about rupees 3500 crores under the Externally Aided Project (ADB). The proposed scheme of rupees 850 crores, and the work related to ensuring 24 hour power supply to government offices / commercial establishments and domestic consumers of the State, are being looked after by respondent No. 3”, the bench had further noted in the order.
Resultantly, with such observations, the Apex Court disposed of the matter.
Cause Title: Girish Chandra Kholiya v. State Of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Order
