The petitioner who asked the Supreme Court to direct the Bombay High Court to resolve a case within a specific time frame has been charged a penalty of ₹1.5 lakh by the Supreme Court.

Keywords: article 32, Bombay high court, penalty

A builder was fined ₹1, 50,000 by the Supreme Court for submitting a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, asking for a writ of mandamus to the Bombay High Court to resolve a 2019 appeal within a designated timeframe. The builder’s appeal was among the many that have been pending in the High Court for fifteen to twenty years, as observed by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal.

The Supreme Court disapproved the petitioner’s effort to bypass the legal system’s established order, pointing out that litigants who have the resources to approach the apex court cannot receive preferential treatment over other litigants. The court further stated that such an act amounted to misusing the legal process. The Court said that we deprecate the attempt made by the petitioner to jump the queue by approaching this Court in this manner. A litigant who can afford to approach this Court in this manner cannot get priority over other older cases. Filing such petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is nothing but an abuse of the process of law[1].

Following the argument of the petition, the petitioner’s representative requested the court’s authorization to withdraw the request. The court granted permission for the petitioner to withdraw the petition, but mandated that the petitioner pay a fee of ₹1, 50,000 to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority within six weeks.

Written by- Aditya a student of ILSR, GLA University, Mathura, 2^nd Semester, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

[1] BAR AND BENCH, https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-imposes-15-lakh-costs-petitioner-sought-directions-bombay-high-court-time-bound-disposal-case (last visited on 11^th May, 2023).

Admin