HC slaps Rs 50,000 costs for ‘gross abuse of judicial process’

Nearly 17 years after public-spirited individuals were authorised to initiate contempt proceedings against persons or municipal authorities “allowing” encroachments or conniving with the encroachers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a contempt petition with Rs 50,000 costs.

Justice Sudeepti Sharma asserted that the petitioner seeking eviction orders against illegal/unauthorised encroachment in Dhana village in Gurugram district had indulged in a “gross abuse of the judicial process”. The Bench directed that the amount be deposited with the Punjab Chief Minister Relief Fund within two months.

Dismissing the plea related to alleged encroachments in Dhana village, Justice Sharma asserted: “The instant petition constitutes a glaring instance of misuse of the judicial process. It is, therefore, incumbent upon this court to safeguard the sanctity of judicial proceedings and to prevent their exploitation by unscrupulous litigants. The time and resources of this court are limited and must be reserved for bona fide grievances that merit judicial consideration.”

The petitioner had relied upon a Division Bench order passed on October 4, 2008, in a writ petition, directing the municipal corporations and the state government to take the process of removing encroachments to its logical conclusion. It had also authorised “public-spirited” persons to initiate contempt if encroachments were allowed.

In her detailed order, Justice Sharma referred to two affidavits filed by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Manesar (Gurugram), Yash Pal, and Joint Commissioner-II, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, Dinesh.

After examining the record, Justice Sharma held that the petitioner had wrongly invoked the direction. “A perusal of file shows that there is no specific averment regarding the specific area or extent of land where there is illegal encroachment. Further, very vague language to the effect ‘eviction against the illegal/unauthorised encroachment over the passage of the Dhana village, Gurugram district’ is used.”

The court concluded that the petitioners had “misconstrued or failed to properly comprehend the directions issued by the Division Bench, especially the direction which authorises a public-spirited individual to initiate contempt proceedings against any person or municipal authorities allowing or conniving with encroachments in violation of the Court orders. This misunderstanding has resulted in vague and unsubstantiated allegations, lacking clarity as to the actual breach of the said direction, thereby prolonging the proceedings without just cause.”

Justice Sharma added the matter was projected as one involving public interest, but the proceedings revealed “an absence of bona fide intent, rendering the petition devoid of any genuine public spirit.” Such proceedings, the court added, not only wasted precious judicial time but also “contribute significantly to the burgeoning pendency of cases.”