‘Insensitive approach towards directions can’t be tolerated’
CS intervention sought for effective measures
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Aug 8: Expressing displeasure over non-compliance of the directions and orders, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that one of the measures to judge democratic commitment of any Government is the respect it accords to the orders of the court and speedy implementation is inextricably interwoven in the enforcement of rule of law.
Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
The Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal was dealing with a writ petition challenging the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner Reasi whereby the representation of the petitioners against issuance of route permits to e-vehicles in Ransoo area was rejected.
“One of the measures to judge democratic commitment of any Government is the respect it accords to the orders of the court. At the same time, the real majesty of the court lies in its vibrant existence and effective functioning”, High Court said, adding “such vibrancy and effectiveness, in turn, would be achieved by ensuring due implementation and swift obedience of the judgments and orders of the court”.
Stating that compliance of the court’s orders and directions is imperative, High Court, “otherwise, it would have the tendency of shaking the confidence of public in the administration of justice. Long inaction and supine apathy towards compliance of the court’s orders and directions in a given case tantamount to obstruct the course of justice, inasmuch as, the compliance of the court’s order has to be viewed as an integral part of dispensation of justice and administration of justice”.
“The orders passed by the courts of law are shelved for one or other reason, either out of lethargy or because of red-tapism. Such state of things is fatal to the interests of administration of justice, much more, it erodes the faith and confidence of a common man in the judicial machinery and judicial system”, Justice Nargal observed.
Describing the instant case as a classic example of inaction on part of respondents to comply court orders, High Court said, “notice was issued way back on 26.05.2023 and the respondents were also directed to produce original record which led to the passing of order dated 04.04.2023 impugned in the present petition. However, granting of interim relief was deferred on that day”.
Thereafter, seven adjournments were sought on behalf of the respondents to file reply but inspite of availing various opportunities, response was not filed and the High Court was constrained to impose even costs of Rs 500 on 03.05.2024. “Inspite of availing several opportunities by the respondents and imposition of costs, till date, reply has not been filed which speaks volume of respect the respondents have for this court and the orders passed by this court from time to time”, High Court said.
“The record reveals that passing of interim direction was deferred in the instant case with a view to peruse the original record. Since the respondents have failed to produce the original record and have also not filed reply within time, this court is left with no other option, but to grant interim relief in favour of the petitioner”, High Court said.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner in length, Justice Nargal observed, “it is very strange that the respondents despite availing various opportunities from time to time and imposition of costs, have not bothered either to file reply or to deposit the costs”, adding “the lackadaisical approach on behalf of the Government has constrained this court to grant interim relief to the petitioner, which was deferred on the very first day to have response of the respondents”.
“The casual, lethargic and insensitive approach on the part of the authorities towards the compliance of the orders and directions of the courts cannot be tolerated”, High Court made it clear, adding “this approach of the respondents is highly deprecated and the respondents have to evolve an effective measure for providing assistance well in time so that the justice delivery system is not hampered and the court time is not wasted on gaining opportunities without any justifiable cause”,
In the meantime, subject to objections from other side and till next date before the Bench, High Court ordered that the operation of the order impugned dated 04.04.2023 issued by Deputy Commissioner Reasi, shall remain stayed. “Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary and Secretary to Government Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir for information and also for taking effective measures with regard to filing of timely response in the matters pending before this court”, read the order.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
