Civil Revision No. 7811 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh In Civil Revision No. 7811 of 2009 Date of decision : 28.10.2010 State of Haryana and others .. Petitioner vs Dewan Chand Kunger .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This Court on 6.1.2010, while dismissing the civil revision filed by the State, and finding that the dispute in the present case pertained to the period 1987-90 whereby allegedly for some loss suffered by the State on account of job got executed by the respondent – the then Sub Divisional Officer, recovery of ` 17,878/- was sought to be made from him. The suit was filed on 26.2.2004. It was dismissed on 24.3.2008. Even in appeal, the State failed. Still not satisfied, for a dispute of meagre sum, the State approached this court. Considering the fact that the dispute pertains to meager amount of ` 17,878/- and two courts had already gone into the claim made by the State and found the same to be misconceived, this court dismissed the petition, however, with the following observations:- “The casual approach with which the appellants have dealt with the case is evident from the fact that an application for stay of operation of judgment and decree of the lower appellate court has been filed, supported by an affidavit of literate Executive Engineer seeking stay. What kind of stay could possibly be prayed for cannot be made as it is a case in which the suit filed by the State for recovery of amount from the respondent, was dismissed. Not only this, as to why at no stage any of the senior officers who dealt with the file at different stages have not gone into the judgments and decrees passed by the court below and took a decision of not litigating the issue further in this court, considering the merits as well as the amount involved therein, Civil Revision No. 7811 of 2009 (2) cannot be made out. As the facts suggest for a meager sum of Rs. 17,878/- firstly on the basis of some enquiry a notice for recovery of the amount was issued to the respondent on 3.12.2001. On his failure to deposit the same, civil suit was filed on 26.2.2004. Two courts had gone into the issue in details and did not find merit in the claim set up by the appellants. As to how much time and money was spent by the State in this process certainly deserves to be enquired into. The time and money not only of the department but even courts' time was also wasted in the process of avoidable litigation. It may be noticed that on earlier occasion also, the State had filed an appeal in this court against the award of the learned Additional District Judge, Jind in an arbitration matter, where the amount in dispute was merely Rs. 7,900/-. In that case also, much more than the amount involved in the litigation must have been spent in pursuing the cases in terms of money as well as man hours. Let the matter be enquired into by the Chief Secretary or any person authorised by him and responsibility of the person concerned be fixed in terms of actual cost regarding money and man hours and the same be recovered from him. It may be noticed that it is not that always a person who initiates a file is responsible. The person at the higher level, who approves the file on such a proposal without application of mind, is equally responsible. The final result of the enquiry report shall be submitted to the court on or before 30.4.2010. On 19.7.2010, the enquiry report was placed on the record. But as the same was not satisfactory, the learned State counsel sought more time to get instructions and the case was adjourned to 2.8.2010 by passing the following order:- “In terms of the order passed by this Court on 6.1.2010, the enquiry report has been placed on file, which apparently is not satisfactory, as it refers to the amount spent by the State merely in filing the civil revision in this Court. In the said report, cost of man power of Irrigation Department, Prosecution Department and the services rendered by Advocate General's Civil Revision No. 7811 of 2009 (3) office has been assessed merely at ` 5,000/-. Learned counsel for the State seeks time to have instructions. Adjourned to 2.8.2010. On 2.8.2010, as correct information was not supplied, the case was adjourned to 16.8.2010, by passing the following order:- “In response to the order passed by this Court earlier, learned State counsel has submitted that he has received a supplementary inquiry report mentioning therein that a total of ` 22,788/- was spent on litigation in the last more than six years in Court and pertaining to the dispute of 1991 involving a sum of ` 17,878/- which was sought to be recovered from the respondent. Let the details as to how the amount spent by the State on the litigation has been calculated, be furnished. Adjourned to 16.08.2010.” On 16.8.2010, the learned State counsel submitted second supplementary enquiry report. This court while considering the same passed the following order:- “Today, second supplementary enquiry report has been produced on record by learned counsel appearing for the State, which not only makes an interesting reading, but also shows the casual manner of working of Government. It has been shown that the office of District Attorney, Rohtak has informed that on the case, when it was pending in the court below, a sum of ` 360/- only was spent in the whole process in terms of value of time spent and other expenses. A perusal of the file shows that the civil suit was instituted by the State on 26.2.2004 in the Civil Court, which was dismissed on 24.3.2008. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge on 21.5.2008, which was dismissed on 12.2.2009. Meaning thereby that the case remained pending in the courts below for 5 years. A perusal of the decree sheet shows that court fee stamps of ` 3,070/- were affixed on the civil suit and further ` 3,125/- was paid when the appeal was filed before the District Judge, besides other expenses. There is no mention of the expenses so incurred in the details furnished in the court. Not only this, the details are totally silent about the time and money spent by the department while Civil Revision No. 7811 of 2009 (4) filing the suit and pursuing the same for a period of five years in the courts below. As to in what manner the enquiry was conducted and the amount or money spent has been calculated is required to be ascertained from the officer concerned, who conducted in the enquiry in slip-shod manner. Let Mr. Anurag Agarwal, Special Secretary to Government, Haryana, Political & Services Department, who conducted the enquiry and determine the amount spent by the State on the frivolous litigation to appear in person in court on 23.8.2010.” “On 23.8.2010, this court passed the following order and adjourned the case for today:- In terms of the order passed by this court on 16.8.2010, Mr. Anurag Aggarwal has appeared in person. He stated that on account of incorrect understanding of the order passed that cost in terms of time and money is to be calculated only with regard to the civil revision filed in this court, details were sought for from the concerned departments. However, he would get the details of time and money spent on the entire litigation from the date the suit was filed in the civil court till it concluded in the High Court.” Today 3rd Supplementary Enquiry Report has been furnished by learned counsel for the State calculating the money spent by the State in contesting the litigation involving a sum of ` 17,878/-. In terms of the report, total sum of ` 31,970/- has been calculated from the date of filing of the civil suit in the trial court till the civil revision in this court in a period of six years. A perusal of the enquiry report shows that calculation is quite conservative. Details from report is reproduced as under:- “(A) Expenditure on account of Civil Suit filed in the court of Civil Judge, Rohtak (i) Expenditure by O/o XEN,Water Services Division, Rohtak 1) Court Fee = Rs. 3220/- 2) Photostat, typing etc. = Rs.. 180/- 3) One hour salary of XEN on the date of evidence = Rs. 130/- 4) Amount spent in terms of time & money on various dates (one hour salary of Assistant for every hearing) i.e. (27x30) = Rs. 810/- Total = Rs. 4340/- Civil Revision No. 7811 of 2009 (5) (ii) Expenditure incurred by O/o Distt. Attorney, Rohtak (a) Man hours & salary at the time of filing Civil Suit :- i) Law Officer :- One hour's salary = Rs. 61/- (b) Man hours and salary at the time of conducting proceeding of Civil Suit up to decision and sending the comments are as under:- i) Law Officer :- Three hour's salary = Rs. 186/- ii) Stenographer :- One hour's salary = Rs. 102/- iii) Law Officer :- One hour's salary for sending comment = Rs. 116/- iv) Time spent by the then Distt. Attorney Half hour's salary = Rs. 78/- v) Postal expenses :- = Rs. 36/- Total = Rs. 579/- (B) Expenditure on account of 1st Appeal filed in the Court of Distt. Judge, Rohtak. (i) Expenditure by O/o XEN,Water Services Division, Rohtak 1) Court Fee = Rs. 3438/- 2) Photostat, typing etc. = Rs.. 200/- 3) One hour salary of XEN on the date of evidence = Rs. 150/- 4) Amount spent in terms of time on various dates (one hour salary of Assistant for every hearing) i.e. (09x30) = Rs. 270/- Total = Rs. 4058/- (ii) Expenditure incurred by O/o Distt. Attorney, Rohtak in filing of 1st Appeal. (a) Man hours & salary at the time of filing 1st appeal, conducting proceeding of Civil Appeal up to decision are as under:- i) Law Officer :- One and a half hour's salary = Rs. 165/- (b) Man hours & salary at the time of sending comments for filing 2nd appeal/civil revision:- i) Stenographer :- One hour's salary = Rs. 105/- iii) Law Officer :- 1½ hour's salary = Rs. 175/- iii) Time spent by the then Distt. Attorney Half hour's salary = Rs. 80/- v) Postal expenses :- = Rs. 40/- Total = Rs. 565/- Civil Revision No. 7811 of 2009 (6) “(C) Expenditure incurred in filing Civil Revision Petition before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court (i) By O/o XEN,Water Services Division, Rohtak Fee and typing charges = Rs. 3450/- Three Number Journey of Peon from Rohtak to office of Advocate General, Haryana. = Rs. 1080/- Three Days Salary of Peon = Rs. 1797.33 Two Days salary of Typist for = Rs. 1109.26 typing all the documents One day salary of Executive = Rs. 1641.30 Engineer Rohtak W. S. Division Rohtak for Studying and Consultation Cost of legal advice = Rs. 2100/- Misc. expenditure i.e. photostat, stationary, papers etc. (Approx.) = Rs. 250/- Grand Total = Rs. 11427.89 (a) By Advocate General office, Haryana. a) Time spent during filing of the case including, handling by Staff Members like, dealing Assistant, Superintendent, Steno, Clerks etc. and thereafter vetting the case by Law Officer and handling the case till filing on dates mentioned above = Rs. 5000/- b) Amount calculated for putting up appearance before the Hon'ble Court by the Law Officer on the above mentioned six dates and during this court the subordinate staff also assisted in enquiry, information, in complying with the directions of the Hon'ble Court = Rs. 6000/-. Total = Rs. 11,000/- Thus the total cost incurred by the State in filing and defending the case from Civil Suit to Civil Revision Petition comes to Rs. 31970/-.” The above report makes an interesting reading as the amount spent on typing etc. is more than the value of time spent by the law officers. In the process, the value of time spent by the court has not been taken care of. Be that as it may, this court is not going into the aspect of calculation as such as the question was to send a message across to the officers, who are indulging in frivolous litigation without considering the worth of it. Recovery of even token amount would send a signal to all concerned not to indulge in Civil Revision No. 7811 of 2009 (7) avoidable frivolous litigation at the cost of the State. The officers should take responsibility in saying no in recording their opinion on the files while considering the merits of a case and the amount involved therein. Senior officers should have courage and guts to stand on their own legs rather than finding some one else's shoulder to take support or use him as clutches. It is high time that the State considers the issue regarding non-filing of appeals in matters involving meagre amount. As the amount of money spent by the State in addition to time of the court may be more than the amount involved in the case. The cases should not be fought only to settle egos or to harass some officer or a public man. Similar policies where the appeals are not filed considering the amount involved in the cases, are already invogue in Income Tax and Central Excise Departments. Let the amount spent by the State on account of inaction or irresponsible decision taken by the officers concerned be recovered from them and reported to this court within six months. The file be put up before the court on 18.5.2011. Copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the State under the signatures of the Bench Secretary. 28.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge