Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS. ..... Petitioners
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, Ms. Ayushi Garg and Ms. Tesu Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents : None.
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 11390/2023 (for exemption)
2. The application stands disposed of.
3. Petitioners challenge the orders dated 18.08.2022 as well as 18.12.2022, whereby a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for seeking adjournment was imposed by the learned Trial Court and the application seeking waiver of the said cost was dismissed, respectively.
4. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that due to change in the counsel of the Union of India as well as deempanelment of the panel counsel of the Union of India, no counsel was present.
5. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel submits that as per the contention of the petitioner, the absence was due to the fact that the duration of the empanelment of the counsel had expired and the fresh empanelment had not taken place.
6. Learned counsel submits that it is the aforesaid reason that the previous counsel was unable to appear and the costs were imposed.
7. This Court has considered the submissions of Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for petitioner. It is a known fact that the UOI is represented through its nominated counsel who are empanelled in regular course. The said list, at many times, expires due to efflux of time or some counsel may be de-empanelled. It takes some time before the exercise of drawing up fresh panel is complete. In those circumstances the UOI cannot be blamed
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that no purpose would be served in retaining the matter further, as it would be indicting the trial, which appears to be pertaining to the year 2016.
9. An advance service upon the respondent was effected in terms of the notification dated 05.12.2019 of this Court.
10. In view of the aforesaid, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the order on the aspect of imposition of costs of Rs. 10,000/- vide orders dated 18.08.2022 and 18.12.2022, whereby the application seeking waiver of such costs was dismissed.
11. This order is only with respect to the aforesaid issues retaining the other portions of the impugned orders intact.
12. Petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. MARCH 10, 2023