Supreme Court dismisses petitions due to delay, warns of contempt for non-compliance, and imposes costs.

The Supreme Court, in a judgment by Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ., addressed a case involving delay in filing a petition, lack of authority of the petitioner's officer, seeking a certificate of dismissal, and imposition of costs. The Court did not condone the delay in filing the petition, rejected the officer's unauthorized statement, highlighted issues with seeking dismissal certificates, and imposed a nominal cost on the State Government. The Court directed recovery of costs from the responsible officer and warned of contempt proceedings for non-compliance, ultimately dismissing the Special Leave Petitions due to delay.

---

---

Issues: Delay in filing petition, Lack of authority of officer, Seeking certificate of dismissal, Imposition of costs

In the judgment delivered by Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ., the Supreme Court addressed the issue of delay in filing the petition. The Court noted a delay of 227 days from the date of the review order, which extended to 502 days if counted from the original order. The petitioner(s) attempted to justify the delay by citing administrative procedures, but the Court emphasized that it was not inclined to condone administrative inefficiencies affecting legal remedies, especially in light of previous judgments. Consequently, the delay was not accepted.

Regarding the lack of authority of the officer representing the petitioner, the Court found that the stand taken in the impugned order was disclaimed by the petitioner, stating that the officer's statement was unauthorized. When questioned about any actions taken against the officer, the petitioner's senior counsel admitted to a lack of instructions in this regard. This attempt to disavow the officer's statement was viewed as an effort to evade a commitment made before the High Court.

The Court highlighted the recurring issue of seeking a certificate of dismissal, as observed in a previous case. It noted that despite no action being taken against the concerned officer, the Government aimed to retract from the commitment made by the officer. Such cases were labeled as "certificate cases," where parties sought dismissal certificates from the Supreme Court to conclude matters quietly.

In terms of imposing costs, the Court decided that the petitioners should bear the costs for the judicial time consumed. However, considering the cautious approach adopted by the senior counsel and to align with the Court's previous stance, a nominal cost of Rs.10,000 was imposed on the State Government for approaching the Court. The Court directed the recovery of costs from the officer responsible for the decision to approach the Court without taking action against the officers or causing delays.

The Court ordered the costs to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee within four weeks, with a certificate of recovery to be filed within the same period. Non-compliance with the order was warned to be met with contempt proceedings against the Commissioner. The order was to be forwarded to the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, and the Special Leave Petition(s) were dismissed due to the delay, with pending applications disposed of accordingly.

---