Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 32928 OF 2009 [CC NO.18257 of 2009]

Satyapal Singh … Petitioner  Vs. Union of India & Anr. … Respondents

O R D E R

R.V. Raveendran, J.

Delay condoned. We find no ground to interfere with final order  dismissing the writ petition. But the direction to the writ petitioner  to pay exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/- to the High Court Legal Service  Committee, deserves to be addressed.  

2. The petitioner, an employee of the Government Ordnance Factory,  Muradnagar, Ghaziabad (UP), was transferred to Dehradun on 6.10.1998.  As he did not vacate the residential quarters at Muradnagar, the Estate  Officer by order dated 15.6.2000, directed him to vacate the quarters.  The  petitioner  filed  an  appeal  against  the  order  of  eviction.  On  1.7.2000, the Appellate authority (District Judge, Ghaziabad) admitted  the appeal, noting that there were ‘arguable points in the appeal’ and  granted interim stay in regard to order of eviction, pending disposal  of the appeal. The appeal was pending for several years and was finally  heard and dismissed on 21.4.2009. The petitioner challenged the order

of the appellate authority by filing a writ petition on 28.4.2009. The  High Court, on preliminary hearing, dismissed the writ petition by the  impugned order dated 22.5.2009, holding that the petitioner was under a  legal  obligation  to  hand  over  the  possession  of  the  quarters  on  transfer  and  having  failed  to  do  so,  the  order  of  eviction  was  justified. The High Court also felt that the conduct of the petitioner  in retaining the accommodation for 10 years amounted to indiscipline  and that cannot be tolerated and he should therefore be ‘saddled with  exemplary costs’. The operative portion of the order of the High Court  levying exemplary costs is extracted below:  

“Accordingly,  this  writ  petition  is  dismissed  with  costs  of  Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The costs so imposed  must be deposited by the petitioner through a bank draft in  favour of Registrar General of this Court, within one month  from today, failing which the District Magistrate shall ensure  recovery of the said amount of Rs.50,000/- as arrears of land  revenue within a further period of one month and shall transmit  the  money  so  collected  to  the  Registrar  General.  The  costs  recovered shall be placed in the accounts of the High Court  Legal Services Committee, Allahabad.”    

3. The petitioner sought leave to challenge the order of the High  Court  both  in  regard  to  upholding  of  the  eviction  and  levy  of  exemplary  costs.  But  when  the  matter  came  up  today,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  stated  that  the  petitioner  vacated  the  residential quarters on 19.5.2009 and his only grievance was in regard  to award of Rs.50,000/- as costs.  

4. It is true that the case of the petitioner was ultimately found  to be without merit, but the appellate court chose to admit the appeal  and grant stay, stating  “there are arguable points in appeal, admit

and register”. The appellate court did not vacate the interim order  even when the respondents resisted the appeal. The continuation by the  petitioner  in  the  quarters  after  the  order  of  eviction,  was  in  pursuance  of  an  interim  order  granted  by  the  District  Court  on  1.7.2000  which  was  continued  till  the  dismissal  of  the  appeal  on  21.4.2009. The appellate court while dismissing the appeal did not  consider  it  a  fit  case  for  levy  of  any  costs.  The  petitioner  challenged  the  order  of  the  appellate  authority  by  filing  a  writ  petition. The High Court found no merit in it and dismissed it by  impugned order dated 22.5.2009. The question is whether levy of such  costs and that too for the benefit of legal service authority is  proper.  

5. Exemplary costs are levied where a claim is found to be false  or  vexatious  or  where  a  party  is  found  to  be  guilty  of  misrepresentation, fraud or suppression of facts. In the absence of  any  such  finding,  it  will  be  improper  to  punish  a  litigant  with  exemplary costs. When the appellate court did not choose to levy any  costs while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner after nine  years of pendency with interim stay, the High Court, while dismissing  the writ petition at preliminary hearing, ought not to have levied  exemplary costs with reference to the period of pendency before the  Appellate Court. We do not find any ground on which the exemplary  costs of Rs.50,000/- could be sustained. Levy of exemplary costs on  ordinary litigants, as punishment for merely for approaching courts  and  securing  an  interim  order,  when  there  was  no  fraud,  misrepresentation or suppression is unwarranted. In fact, it will be

bad precedent.  

5. Even if any costs are to be levied on a petitioner, for any  default  or  delaying  tactics,  where  the  respondents  have  entered  appearance, costs should be ordered to be paid to the respondents, who  were the affected parties on account of the litigation. There is no  justification  for  levying  costs  of  Rs.50,000/-  on  the  petitioner  payable to the High Court Legal Service Committee. There is also no  justification  for  directing  the  state  government  to  act  as  the  collecting  agent  for  the  costs  payable  to  the  Legal  Services  Committee. Directing a government servant, an ordinary employee, to  pay Rs. 50,000/- as costs within one month and further directing the  use of coercive process for recovery of costs as arrears of land  revenue was unwarranted. The levy of such exemplary costs in favour of  the High Court Legal Services Committee, is not a healthy practice.  

6. The costs may be justifiably made payable to the High Court Legal  Services Committee or other Legal Services Authorities, where before  the other side is served or represented, the court wants to penalise a  petitioner  for  lapses/omissions/delays,  as  for  example,  where  the  petitioner fails to pay the process fee for service of respondents, or  fails to cure defects or comply with office objections, or where there  is delay in refiling of petitions. Once the other side is represented,  the costs levied by reason of any attempt by a party to delay the  proceedings, should normally be for the benefit of the other party who  has suffered due to such conduct. Only where both the parties are at  fault, costs may be ordered to be paid to Legal Services Authority. At

all events, the power to levy exemplary costs, it is needless to say,  should  be  used  sparingly  to  advance  justice.  It  should  not  be  threatening and oppressive.

7. In view of the above, we delete the direction for payment of  exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/-. Subject to such deletion, the Special  leave petition is dismissed.  

___________________J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; ____________________J. November 23, 2009. (K S Radhakrishnan)