| Article Section | |||||||||||
|
Home |
|||||||||||
Delayed justice - WP of 2001 decided after more than 18 years in one hearing. This shows justice delayed is justice denied. |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Delayed justice - WP of 2001 decided after more than 18 years in one hearing. This shows justice delayed is justice denied. |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
2019 (12) TMI 881 - MADRAS HIGH COURT Original assessment was made on 22032001 following notification dated 7th April 1998 and clarification dated 21101999 which was in force and has remained in force. Reassessment notice was issued within 77 days from date of original assessment. Writ Petition of 2001 was against notice dated 06062001 for reassessment. Writ Petition was filed during year 2001 on the website of Madras High Court, details / history of case is found as per the following webpage taken as two screen shots:
As per above webpage: Filing Number: 1013741/2001Filing Date: 01-01-2001 The above dates of filing and registry seems wrong , may be by default dates are taken 01012001. This is because when notice under challenge is dated 06062001, WP will be filed after receipt of such notice and cannot factually be 01012001. The judgment is available on website as it is very recent one. We find case has appeared in cause list for hearing on 13072019, 20072019, 09122019,10122019, and 16122019. Even if we assume that the WP was filed at end of year 2001 we find that judgment has been delivered during last fortnight of year 2019. That means it took more than 18 years in disposal of the WP, although the matter involved was simple. From the case status as seen above it can be said that till 12072019 the matter was not fixed for hearing and / or was not heard at any time. Therefore, for long period of more than 18 years and six months the matter was lying in cold bag. It appears that only on 10122019 AND 16122019 the case was fixed for final hearing, it was at most heard on two days and judgment has been passed on the day of hearing itself. Before that, the case was not heard but adjourned for some reasons like paucity of time or on prayer of advocate of any side etc. This shows that if cases are monitored, fixed for hearing with seriousness and parties to case also take it seriously, such matters can be disposed off in a short time. However, as per our system, including delaying tactics adopted, and liberal approach in granting adjournments, the disposal of cases is delayed and pending cases list is expanding. Cause lists are also attributable to delay: Experience shows that cause list system of notice to parties is also an important reason for delay in justice. We find suddenly a matter appear is cause list and then it may run in the cause list for several days but may not be heard. A system of reasonable notice should be adopted, whereby parties to case should be informed of date of hearing. Sufficient time of say four months should be allowed so that parties can file their paper books, written notes etc. and serve a copy on opposite party and opposite party can file rejoinder etc. And by the time of hearing, parties to case are ready to represent the case. In such circumstances, adjournments shall be reduced, and hearings and disposal will be expedited. If any case is not appearing in cause list within a reasonable time, the petitioner or even opposite party should inform the Registry Office of the Court and request for fixing a date of hearing. In the case under study, if the parties had also taken an initiative, perhaps case was not kept pending for such a long period of time.
By: CA DEV KUMAR KOTHARI - December 23, 2019
|
|||||||||||
| |
|||||||||||
