Writ interference with costs awards is limited where a tribunal uses Civil Rules of Practice only as an analogical guide.

Award of advocate's fee and costs by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, fixed by reference to the Civil Rules of Practice only as an analogous guide, was held not to justify interference under Article 226. Costs are a matter of judicial discretion and writ interference is limited to cases where that discretion is exercised perversely, arbitrarily, vindictively, or without application of mind. The Tribunal had not treated the Civil Rules as binding, and the fee scale was used only to determine quantum. As the award in favour of the deceased's legal heirs was neither unauthorized nor unfair, the challenge to the costs order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the award of advocate's fee and costs by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, fixed by reference to the Civil Rules of Practice as a matter of analogy and guidance, could be interfered with in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The award of costs is a matter of judicial discretion and is ordinarily not open to interference in writ proceedings unless the discretion is shown to have been exercised perversely, arbitrarily, vindictively, or without application of mind. The Tribunal had not treated the Civil Rules of Practice as binding on it, but had referred to the scale applicable to suits only by way of analogy for fixing the quantum of advocate's fee. The award was made in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased and was neither shown to be unauthorized nor unfair.

Conclusion: Interference under Article 226 was not warranted, and the challenge to the award of costs failed.

---