Court upholds order for appellant to deposit costs due to alleged whimsical order, rejecting claim of not being heard.

The High Court upheld the order directing the appellant to deposit costs of Rs. 50,000 due to an alleged whimsical order passed without her being heard. The Court rejected the appellant's claim of not being heard, noting representation by the Government Advocate and that writ petitions are against the State, not individual malice. The Court considered a Supreme Court judgment cited by the appellant's counsel but found the Single Judge's decision to impose costs on the officer valid, based on findings of malice-in-fact and malice-in-law. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order to deposit costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order directing deposit of costs due to whimsical order passed by appellant without being heard.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged an order directing her to deposit costs of Rs. 50,000 due to an alleged whimsical order passed without her being heard. The appellant's counsel argued that the order was erroneous and should be set aside. The appellant claimed she was not heard and no whimsical order was passed. The counsel cited additional documents and a Supreme Court judgment to support the case. However, the High Court found no merit in the appeal.

Regarding the contention that the appellant was not heard, the High Court noted that the appellant was represented by the Government Advocate before the Single Judge and was a respondent in her official capacity. The court highlighted that writ petitions are filed against the State based on the office held by the officer, not individual malice. Therefore, the claim of not being heard was deemed incorrect and rejected.

The High Court also considered the Supreme Court judgment cited by the appellant's counsel. The Court reviewed the evidence on record and the conduct justifying the remarks made in the impugned order. The Single Judge had previously held that the officer's order suffered from malice-in-fact and malice-in-law, terming it whimsical. As a result, the officer was directed to pay exemplary costs, which the High Court found justified based on the Single Judge's findings.

The High Court concluded that the Single Judge's decision to impose costs on the officer for passing a whimsical order was valid and within discretion. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's decision and dismissed the appeal. The judgment upheld the order directing the appellant to deposit costs and did not find any grounds for setting it aside.

---