Punjab and Haryana HC asks litigant to plant trees instead of imposing costs

Advertisement

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, September 10

In an exceptional order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered a litigant to plant 75 trees by way of imposing costs.

The direction by Justice Arun Monga of the High Court came in a case where the petitioner claimed that his right to file a written statement before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had been struck off due to its non-filing on time.

Taking up the petition filed through counsel Saurav Bhatia, Justice Monga asserted the writ petition was allowed subject to costs assessed at Rs.10,000. By way of imposition of costs, the petitioner would plant 75 trees of deciduous and perennial nature of any variety such as Neem, Amla, Gulmohar and Alstonia in the vicinity of his residence.

Justice Monga added the plantation would be carried out under the supervision of the District Horticulture Officer concerned. He would give a letter of proof to the MACT on the carrying out the plantation drive in accordance with the Court orders.

Justice Monga added the Court below would ensure compliance of the direction. In case of default on the petitioner’s behalf, High Court Registry would be at liberty to place the matter before the Bench again for reporting non-compliance. The proof of plantation was also directed to be furnished by the petitioner in the Registry, along with supporting letter from the horticulture department.

The Bench was during the course of hearing told that the petitioner had filed his written statement in an earlier round of claim petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn. Though he prepared the written statement in the second claim petition, he could not file it on time leading to passing of the impugned order vide which his defence has been struck off. Bhatia added the petitioner was 90 per cent disable and unable to walk and could not even attend the Court hearings in person. He was necessarily dependant on his counsel and others to follow up his interest.

Justice Monga added the Court was of the view that the interest of justice would be met if one more opportunity was granted to file the written statement subject to certain costs. The non-filing did not appear to be deliberate, borne out from the earlier round of litigation where the petitioner had already filed his written statement.