8 years later, HC dismisses plea as non-maintainable

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, January 18

The pendency of more than 3.60 lakh cases in the Punjab and Haryana High Court is taking its toll on the litigants. It has taken the High Court nearly eight years to decide the preliminary issue of maintainability of a writ petition due to repeated adjournments for arguments.

The case revolves around refund of security/guarantee money of approximately Rs 2.35 crore claimed to have been furnished by the petitioner with Haryana State Roads and Bridges Development Corporation Ltd pursuant to the execution of a contract for collection of toll tax on two roads.

The High Court itself asserted in its order that the petition filed in 2011 was never heard effectively after completion of pleadings as reflected from the order sheet. It was getting adjourned from time to time for arguments. “Therefore, at the very first opportunity when the matter has been heard today, the counsel for the respondents have taken the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the arbitration clause,” Justice Arun Monga observed.

Turning down the petition, Justice Monga added the argument that the objection of maintainability has been taken at a belated stage does not stand the judicial scrutiny of the court. In the circumstances, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the arbitration proceedings.

The delay in the matter may sound exceptional but is not extraordinary. National Judicial Data Grid figures reveal that the High Court, as of now, has 3,61,028 pending cases, including 1,60,224 civil cases. No less than 1,31,713 civil cases and 53,574 writ cases were more than a year old. The data released by the High Court itself says that 2018 ended with 3,37,231 pending cases.

The Bench was also told that some of the issues could not be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction.

Justice Monga added the Bench was in agreement with the arguments addressed by the counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, the court held the present petition to be liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.