SATYAPAL SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 1079 · Decided: 23-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1079 
SATYAPAL SINGH 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA&ANR. 
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 32928 of 2009) 
NOVEMBER 23, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.) 
B 
Costs: 
Exemplary costs imposed by High Court - Central 
Government employee on his transfer ordered to vacate 
Government accommodation - On appeal, District Court by c 
interim order stayed eviction - Appeal ultimately dismissed -
Writ petition of employee dismissed by High Court on 
preliminary hearing, imposing an exemplary cost of 
Rs. 50, 0001- to be paid by petitioner to High Court Legal 
Services Committee - Employee vacating the accommodation 
D 
- HELD: It is true that the case of petitioner was ultimately found 
to be without.merit, but the appellate court chose to admit the 
appeal and grant stay, stating, "there are arguable points in 
appeal, admit and register" - The appellate court did not vacate 
the interim order even when the respondents resisted the 
appeal - Continuation by the petitioner in the quarters after the 
E. 
order of eviction, was in pursuance of an interim order granted 
by the District Court on 1. 7.2000 which was continued till 
dismissal of the appeal on 21.4.2009 - When the appellate 
court did not choose to levy any costs while dismissing the 
:> 
appeal filed by the petitioner after nine years of pendency with 
F 
4 
interim stay, High Court, while dismissing the writ petition at 
preliminary hearing; ought not to have levied exemplary costs 
with reference to the period of pendency before appellt:Jte court 
- There is no ground on which the exemplary costs of 
Rs. 50, 0001- could be sustained - Direction for payment of 
G 
exemplary costs deleted - Guidelines for imposing costs and 
payment thereof to the contesting party or High Court Legal 
) 
Services Committee or other Legal Services Authorities laid 
down. 
1079 
H 
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Civil) No. 32928 
of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.5.2009 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 25112 of2009. 
S.S. Nehra, N.D.Gaur, RajenderVerma for the Petitioners. 
B 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Delay condoned. We find no 
ground to interfere with final order dismissing the writ petition. 
But the direction to the writ petitioner to pay exemplary costs of 
c Rs.50,000/- to the High Court Legal Service Committee, 
deserves to be addressed. 
2. The petitioner, an employee of the Government Ordnance 
Factory, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad (UP), was transferred to 
Dehradun on 6.10.1998. As he did not vacate the residential 
D quarters at Muradnagar, the Estate Officer by order dated 
15.6.2000, directed him to vacate the quarters. The petitioner 
filed an appeal against the order of eviction. On 1. 7.2000; the 
.lo 
Appellate authority (District Judge, Ghaziabad) admitted the 
appeal, noting that there were ·arguable points in the appeal' and 
E 
granted interim stay in regard to order of eviction, pending 
disposal of the appeal. The appeal was pending for several years 
and was finally heard and dismissed on 21.4.2009. The petitioner 
challenged the order of the appellate authority by filing a writ 
petition on 28.4.2009. The High Court, on preliminary hearing, 
dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 
F 
22.5.2009, holding that the petitioner was under a legal obligation 
to hand over the possession of the quarters on transfer and 
'( 
having failed to do so, the order of eviction was justified. The High 
Court also felt that the conduct of the petitioner in retaining the 
accommoqation for 10 years amounted to indiscipline and that 
G 
cannot be tolerated and he should therefore be ·saddled with 
exemplary costs'. The operative portion of the order of the High 
Court levying exemplary costs is extracted below: 
. 
"Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of 
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The costs so 
imposed must be deposited by the petitioner through a bank 
H 
draft in favour of Registrar General of this Court, within one 
.• 
) 
SATYAPAL SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
1081 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] 
month from today, failing which the District Magistrate shall 
A 
ensure recovery of the said amount of Rs.50,000/- as 
arrears of land revenue within a further period of one month 
and shall transmit the money so collected to the Registrar 
General. The costs recover

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.