Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION[C] 29852 OF 2009 [CC NO.11768]

Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner .... Petitioner Vs. Mohan Lal .....Respondent

O R D E R

R. V. Raveendran J.

The  petitioner  before  us  is  the  Bikaner  Urban  Improvement Trust. It allotted a Plot (A-303) measuring  450 sq.ft. under its Karni Nagar Scheme to the respondent  in the year 1991. Respondent paid the allotment price  (lease premium) of Rs.3,443/- in 1992 and took possession  in 1997. In the year 1998, the petitioner-Trust allotted  to respondents and delivered possession of the adjacent  strip measuring 150 ft.

2. Thereafter, the Trust without notice to the respondent  and  without  resorting  to  any  acquisition  proceedings,  laid a road in the said plot. The layout map prepared and  made available by the Trust in the year 2002 did not show  

1

the  existence  of  Plot  A-303  or  its  adjoining  strip.  Feeling aggrieved, the respondent met the officers of the  Trust  and  complained  to  them.  He  also  gave  a  written  complaint seeking restoration of the plot. As there was  no response, he approached the District Consumer Forum in  2005,  praying  for  restoration  of  the  plot  or  for  allotment of an alternative site and award of damages of  Rs.200,000/-.  The  District  Forum  disposed  of  the  complaint directing refund of the allotment price paid  with  interest  at  9%  per  annum.  The  State  Commission  allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and directed  allotment  of  an  alternative  plot  and  also  awarded  Rs.5,000/-  as  compensation.  The  National  Commission  dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner  Trust.  Special  leave  is  sought  to  challenge  the  said  order of the National Commission.

3. The Trust does not dispute any of the facts. It has no  explanation  to  offer  for  its  negligence  or  highhanded  action of taking over the allotted plot without notice,  acquisition,  or  consent.  Nevertheless,  the  Trust  challenges  the  relief  granted,  on  three  technical  grounds:

(i) As the respondent was negligent in protecting his  possession and did not protest or complain when the  Trust laid the road in his plot, he is not entitled to  any relief.

2

(ii) The action of the Trust, even if it was an illegal  encroachment, did not amount to ‘deficiency in service’  and  therefore  the  respondent  could  not  invoke  the  jurisdiction of the forum under the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986.

(iii) The complaint was barred by limitation as it  was filed beyond two years from the occurrence of the  cause  of  action,  and  the  respondent  did  not  show  sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

These contentions have been rejected. The decision of the  State Commission rejecting the above contentions is just  and reasonable. The National Commission was justified in  not interfering with the said decision. We are satisfied  that no case is made out to grant special leave under  Article 136 of the Constitution.

4. It is a matter of concern that such frivolous and  unjust  litigation  by  governments  and  statutory  authorities  are  on  the  increase.  Statutory  Authorities  exist  to  discharge  statutory  functions  in  public  interest.  They  should  be  responsible  litigants.  They  cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in  a callous and highhanded manner. They can not behave like  some private litigants with profiteering motives. Nor can  they resort to unjust enrichment. They are expected to  show  remorse  or  regret  when  their  officers  act  negligently  or  in  an  overbearing  manner.  When  glaring  wrong acts by their officers is brought to their notice,  

3

for which there is no explanation or excuse, the least  that is expected is restitution/restoration to the extent  possible  with  appropriate  compensation.  Their  harsh  attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public  and their indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires  to be corrected.

5. This Court has repeatedly expressed the view that the  governments and statutory authorities should be model or  ideal  litigants  and  should  not  put  forth  false,  frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions  to obstruct the path of justice. We may refer to some of  the decisions in this behalf.  

5.1) In  Dilbagh Rai Jarry vs. Union of India [1973 (3)  SCC 554] where this Court extracted with approval, the  following  statement  (from  an  earlier  decision  of  the  Kerala High Court):  

“The  State,  under  our  Constitution,  undertakes  economic activities in a vast and widening public  sector and inevitably gets involved in disputes  with  private  individuals.  But  it  must  be  remembered that the State is no ordinary party  trying  to  win  a  case  against  one  of  its  own  citizens  by  hook  or  by  crook;  for  the  State’s  interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a  substantial defence and never to score a technical  point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just  liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply  because legal devices provide such an opportunity.  The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with  unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if  on the merits the case is weak, government shows a  willingness to settle the dispute regardless of  

4

prestige and other lesser motivations which move  private parties to fight in court. The lay-out on  litigation costs and executive time by the State  and  its  agencies  is  so  staggering  these  days  because of the large amount of litigation in which  it  is  involved  that  a  positive  and  wholesome  policy of cutting back on the volume of law suits  by  the  twin  methods  of  not  being  tempted  into  forensic show-downs where a reasonable adjustment  is  feasible  and  ever  offering  to  extinguish  a  pending proceeding on just terms, giving the legal  mentors  of  government  some  initiative  and  authority in this behalf. I am not indulging in  any judicial homily but only echoing the dynamic  national policy on State litigation evolved at a  Conference of Law Ministers of India way back in  1957.  

5.2 In  Madras Port Trust v.  Hymanshu International by  its Proprietor v. Venkatadri (Dead) by L.Rs. [(1979) 4  SCC 176] held:

“2… It is high time that governments and  public authorities adopt the practice of not  relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of  defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do  what  is  fair  and  just  to  the  citizens.  Of  course, if a government or a public authority  takes up a technical plea, the Court has to  decide it and if the plea is well founded, it  has to be upheld by the court, but what we feel  is that such a plea should not ordinarily be  taken up by a government or a public authority,  unless of course the claim is not well-founded  and  by  reason  of  delay  in  filing  it,  the  evidence for the purpose of resisting such a  claim has become unavailable….”

5.3) In a three Judge Bench judgment of Bhag Singh &  Ors. v.  Union Territory of Chandigarh through LAC,  Chandigarh [(1985) 3 SCC 737]:

5

“3… The State Government must do what is fair  and just to the citizen and should not, as far  as  possible,  except  in  cases  where  tax  or  revenue  is  received  or  recovered  without  protest  or  where  the  State  Government  would  otherwise be irretrievably be prejudiced, take  up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate  and just claim of the citizen.”

6. Unwarranted litigation by governments and statutory  authorities basically stem from the two general baseless  assumptions by their officers. They are:

(i)  All  claims  against  the  government/statutory  authorities should be viewed as illegal and should be  resisted and fought up to the highest court of the land. (ii) If taking a decision on an issue could be avoided,  then it is prudent not to decide the issue and let the  aggrieved  party  approach  the  Court  and  secures  a  decision.  

The  reluctance  to  take  decisions,  or  tendency  to  challenge all orders against them, is not the policy of  the  governments  or  statutory  authorities,  but  is  attributable  to  some  officers  who  are  responsible  for  taking decisions and/or officers in charge of litigation.  Their reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency to  protect  themselves  against  any  future  accusations  of  wrong decision making, or worse, of improper motives for  any decision making. Unless their insecurity and fear is  addressed,  officers  will  continue  to  pass  on  the  responsibility  of  decision  making  to  courts  and  

6

Tribunals. The  Central Government  is now  attempting to  deal  with  this  issue  by  formulating  realistic  and  practical  norms  for  defending  cases  filed  against  the  government and for filing appeals and revisions against  adverse  decisions,  thereby,  eliminating  unnecessary  litigation.  But,  it  is  not  sufficient  if  the  Central  Government alone undertakes such an exercise. The State  Governments and the statutory authorities, who have more  litigations than the Central Government, should also make  genuine  efforts  to  eliminate  unnecessary  litigation.  Vexatious and unnecessary litigation have been clogging  the wheels of justice, for too long making it difficult  for  courts  and  Tribunals  to  provide  easy  and  speedy  access to justice to bona fide and needy litigants.

7. In  this  case,  what  is  granted  by  the  State  Commission  is  the  minimum  relief  in  the  facts  and  circumstances,  that  is  to  direct  allotment  of  an  alternative plot with a nominal compensation of Rs.5000/-  But instead of remedying the wrong, by complying with the  decision of the Consumer fora, the Improvement Trust is  trying to brazen out its illegal act by contending that  the allottee should have been protested when it illegally  laid the road in his plot. It has persisted with its  unreasonable and unjust stand by indulging in unnecessary  litigation  by  approaching  the  National  Commission  and  

7

then this Court. The Trust should sensitise its officers  to serve the public rather than justify their dictatorial  acts. It should avoid such an unnecessary litigation.

8. Delay  condoned.  The  special  leave  petition  is  dismissed.

________________J.  (R. V. RAVEENDRAN)

________________J.      (G. S. SINGHVI)

New Delhi; October 30, 2009.

8