1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINALCIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 73 OF 2009 Anil Gidwani ) Age: 51 yrs, Occ : Self Employed, ) Prop: Legal and Engineering ) Translation Services International, ) Ganga Bhavan, 24th Road, Plot ) 459, Bandra (West), Mumbai ) 400 050. ).... ..Petitioner Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra, ) Through Government Pleader, ) Mumbai. ) 2) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ) Esplanade Court, Near CST, ) Mumbai - 400 001. ) 3) The Hon'ble Magistrate ) Borade, Esplanade Court, ) Mumbai - 400 001. ).. . ..Respondents Petitioner in person. None for the Respondents. CORAM : F. I. REBELLO & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : 5TH MAY, 2010. 2 JUDGMENT (Per F. I. REBELLO, J.) : 1. The case of the petitioner in this public interest litigation is that his vehicle Hyundai Santro bearing license plate No. MH-02 PA 2381 was towed away by the traffic police and he was charged for violation of traffic offences. The petitioner has appeared in the trial Court in Case No. 5957/T/2007 and questioned the act of towing. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that there has been unnecessary delay in disposal of the said case and he had to appear before the trial Court time and again which has caused tremendous waste of time and loss of earnings which violates his constitutional right to life and liberty for the violation of an offence of trivial nature and that the matter was unnecessarily adjourned time and again. The petitioner has therefore by the PIL inter alia prayed for a direction that the time limit for speedy disposal of the trial, need to be laid down. 2. This Court by an order dated 28th January, 2010 had directed the concerned Magistrate to dispose of the complaint against the petitioner within 30 days from the receipt of the order and also called a report from the said Magistrate. By order dated 31st March, 2010 3 this Court recorded, that the petitioner's case has been disposed of and he was acquitted. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, on that count has been redressed. 3 The petitioner has, however, raised several grounds to which the Registry of this Court was directed to give their responses, considering the existing policy which has been done and are enumerated hereinbelow. (1) Whether a trial for an alleged parking (non-moving) violation should extend to 21 months. It is required that the trials be completed at the earliest having regard to the nature of petty offences, overall pendency of the old and other matters, etc. (2) Whether constant transfers and re-transfers are justified in any Court and whether they lead to a severe loss of accountability? The policy decision has already been taken with regard to transfer of judicial officers after every 3 years. However, there is exception, by 4 which the Principal District Judge / Principal Judicial Officer may assign or re-assign the cases to different judicial officers in the interest of justice. Sometimes transfer take place on account of administrative exigencies. (3) Whether Magistrate can arrive late in Court even though the matters are traffic matters of a trivial nature. All Courts are bound to work as per Court working hours. If there be case a of Judge not working or not maintaining Court working hours, necessary action including by way of disciplinary action is taken by the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court. (4) Whether Magistrate can ignore their own or predecessor's order giving a last chance and grant constant adjournments. The answer to that depends upon case to case. A conditional order may be passed by way of last chance and the matter adjourned. However, discretion is vested in the Judicial Officer, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the cases to adjourn the matter, if a case is made out. It is purely a discretion vested in the Judicial officer to 5 be exercised on the fact situation. Such discretion is to be exercised on principles already laid down for exercise of discretion. (5) Whether citizen's valuable time can be wasted in coming to the Court for 21 months for an alleged petty offence, resulting in severe stress and loss of earnings to the citizen. Since the offence is registered against a citizen and the citizen does not admit the same and claims to be tried, unless admission of guilt or accepting plea bargaining, such citizen is required to be tried as per law. The aforesaid system is adopted by our State. Expeditious hearing of trial is always desirable and Courts try to ensure as far as possible that trials are concluded at the earliest. Matters, however, on many occasions get delayed for reasons beyond the control of the Court. (6) Whether Court staff can make mistake in listing matters wrongly and with impunity. In normal case, if there be mistakes if any, in listing the matter the same are rectified by listing the matter in due course. Disciplinary 6 action can also be initiated against the erring official if situation demands. (7) Whether the continuous failure to appear by a witness without producing a medical certificate for extended periods of time can be allowed. Not in normal course. However, the discretion is vested in the Judicial Officer, who can waive the production of medical certificate on occasions. This being is purely a discretionary power, it has to be exercised judiciously. The remedy against exercise of discretion is by challenging the order. No authority can interfere in the exercise of this discretion unless it is a malafide exercise of power. (8) Whether a matter can be transferred peremptorily from one Court to another without giving any explanation to the litigant concerned. Not in normal course. However, in exceptional case it is a discretion vested with the Principal District Judge/Principal Judicial Officer of the respective Court in the interest of justice and for administrative 7 reasons. As per the procedure litigants are not required to be given reasons. (9) Whether judicial authorities have a right to withhold replies to letters of complaint from litigants/citizens. In normal course if required replies to the letters to complaint from litigants/ citizens are addressed to. As most times letters are in respect of pending judicial proceedings it is normally not possible to entertain correspondence unless it raises administrative issues. However, in the event of repetition of the same grievance for the same cause of action by litigants, such letters can be filed by directing him to adopt due process of law before appropriate Authority/Court, by taking out appropriate application, if he so desires. 4. The petitioner no doubt has brought to our attention several issues pertaining to the need for speedy disposal of the matters as also the functioning of the judicial system. The petitioner has prayed for various reliefs in the matter of guidelines, rules and procedure governing the time limit for trials. The High Court has published the Civil Manual and Criminal Manual governing the procedure and the 8 manner of conducting suits and criminal trials. Under Article 235 of the Constitution of India the High Court exercises control over the District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto and this power of control extends to the recruitment, promotion and conditions of service of Judicial Officers belonging to the District Court and subordinate Courts and also other quasi judicial authorities which fall under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. Though it is a Full Court that exercises its control, for effective control the Full Court appoints a Committee of Judges, who on behalf of the Full Court exercise their powers. Such an exercise has been judicially upheld by the Supreme Court. There is, therefore, effective control over the functioning of subordinate courts. 5. It is no doubts true that disposal of matters at the earliest is something that we must aspire too. On implementation of the Fast Track Court system for sessions matters a large number of sessions matters have been disposed off. The result now is that Sessions trials are being conducted and disposed of within reasonable time. 6. At the Magistrate level, however, till date no fast track court 9 system has been implemented yet. The pendency of matters specially in the District of Mumbai is very high and the number of Magistrates does not correspond to the workload. There is, therefore, need to augment the judicial strength in the City of Mumbai. There are, however, impediment of infrastructure. Even if additional posts of Judges are sanctioned, other facilities and staff be recruited, there is acute shortage of building to house the additional court and the staff. The High Court, no doubt, does from time to time propose to the Government the need for additional manpower as also infrastructure. The budgetary provisions made by the State Government for the last few years, shows an increase, nonetheless, it is not adequate to meet the floodgate of litigation consequent upon the new enactment like the Negotiable Instruments Act. The State Government has sanctioned evening Courts. The High Court has started the process of evening Courts. Still there is need for more regular Courts as it may not be possible for the same Judge to work Monday to Saturday, for long hours. This ultimately is bound to affect the quality of justice. Apart from that a Judge is away from his family for more hours then it will affect family relationship. The legal system is not a factory where production goes 10 on continuously for 24 hours. 7. In the matter of transfers, the Court has framed its own policy in terms of what is laid down by the Full Court for transfer of Judges at all levels on completing a specified period of work in a particular place. Apart from that there is always a power to transfer for any administrative exigency. At the same time it may not be possible to issue a judicial direction in such matters as these matters are within the powers exercised by the Administrative Committee of the High Court on its administrative side. Some of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner are in the matter of guidelines, rules and procedure which the petitioner would be entitled to get under the Right to Information Act and as such there is no need to issue any separate judicial direction. 8. In so far as ordinary judicial inquiry the question does not arise, as this can be taken up by the Administrative Committee or the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court if the need arises. Courts are alive to the needs of the public for a speedy disposal of matters. 9. Considering the above, this petition is disposed of by giving the 11 following direction: (a) In the matter of guidelines, rules and procedure, it will be open to the petitioner to apply under the Right to Information Act for any specific information and that would be disposed of at that level. Rule to that extent is made absolute. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( F. I. REBELLO, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)