Delhi High Court Warns Of Costs For Filing Petitions Without Jurisdiction

The Delhi High Court has deprecated the practice of filing petitions without jurisdiction, adding that it may be necessary to impose costs, even at the stage of withdrawal of the matters.

Justice Prateek Jalan directed the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the Delhi High Court Bar Association's President and Secretary, before practice of imposition of costs in such cases is commenced.

“Despite the categorical judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, the Court is faced with several petitions each week, where the jurisdictional position is known to counsel, but the writ petition is nonetheless pressed. In many of these cases, it is argued that the relief sought is urgent, and a last minute effort is made to persuade the Court to exercise jurisdiction so as to protect the litigant,” the Court said.

“Such cases not only jeopardise the litigant's interest by burdening them with unnecessary effort, time, and resources, but also impose an undue burden on the writ Court. This practice is strongly deprecated,” it added.

Justice Jalan dismissed a plea moved by one Meenakshi Tyagi challenging an order passed by All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and for a direction to allow her to continue in service there.

At the outset, the Court pointed to Tyagi's counsel that the petition ought to have been filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as AIIMS is a notified entity for the purposes of the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Court noted that Tyagi had approached the Tribunal for the same relief and that the impugned order was passed by AIIMS pursuant to a direction of Tribunal directing that the matter be treated as a representation to AIIMS.

It further noted that the High Court Registry had also pointed out to Tyagi that the matter ought to be filed before the CAT but she had filed an application seeking listing of the matter without raising the issue of maintainability. It was contended that the impugned order gave rise to a fresh show cause of action.

Rejecting the plea, the Court said that in cases which fall within the jurisdiction of the CAT, it is not open to a litigant to approach the Writ Court at the first instance.

It added that the sole exemption in such cases is where the vires of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is under challenge.

Noting that a Division Bench had repeatedly expressed concern that the practice of filing writ petitions directly persists even in matters which should go to the CAT, Justice Jalan said:

“The Court is compelled to observe that, in such cases, it may now be necessary to adopt the practice of imposition of costs, even at the stage of withdrawal of the petition.”

“While permitting Mr. Pati to withdraw this writ petition and approach the Tribunal, the Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the President and Secretary, Delhi High Court Bar Association, before the Court commences the practice of imposition of costs in such cases,” the Court said while dismissing the plea.

Title: MEENAKSHI TYAGI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Click here to read order