Bombay HC’s Stricter Stance On “Robotic Approach” For Frequent Adjournments

Sonam Pandey
September 03, 2024

A "robotic approach" in seeking adjournments to file reply affidavits and other documents has caused significant delays in the legal proceedings, according to the Bombay High Court Division Bench, comprising of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan.

On November 11, 2022, the learned AGP and the learned Advocate for CIDCO sought time to obtain instructions and, if necessary, file a reply. Therefore, the proceedings were adjourned to December 15, 2022. Subsequently, the matter was listed before the Court on June 19, 2023, at which time directions were issued for the respondents to file an affidavit by July 17, 2023, and serve a copy on the Petitioners' advocates.

Despite these directions, as of January 2, 2024, none of the respondents had filed their reply affidavits and further time was sought, resulting in an adjournment to February 20, 2024. When the matter was listed again, both the State and CIDCO requested another adjournment to file reply affidavits.

The Court observed that, despite a year having passed since its initial order, the respondents had failed to comply with the directive to file reply affidavits, prompting the Court to impose costs. The Court granted the respondents a final opportunity to file their reply affidavits by September 12, 2024, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- each, payable to the petitioners. The matter was adjourned to September 12, 2024.

"In the above circumstances, when for a period of one year an order passed by this Court directing the respondents to file reply affidavit is not being complied, we have no alternative but to impose costs. Thus, as a matter of last chance, liberty is granted to file reply affidavits not later than 12 September 2024, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioners," the Court ordered.

The Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the respondents' conduct, noting that at no point during the extended period had any application been filed seeking an extension of time to file reply affidavits, despite specific orders being in place. The Court criticised the routine practice of requesting additional time, which it characterized as a "sorry state-of-affairs" within the concerned department.

The Court further noted that such repeated requests for adjournments, without valid justification, had become a "robotic approach" and indicated that it would take a stricter stance on such matters in the future. The Court stated that it would no longer permit requests for adjournments or the filing of reply affidavits without the payment of costs, unless justified by an appropriate application.

The Court also raised concerns about whether its orders were being properly communicated to the concerned department, expressing doubts as to whether the necessary information was being brought before the Court. The Court directed the learned AGP to forward the order to the learned Advocate General, the learned Government Pleader on the Appellate Side, and the Original Side, so that a circular could be issued to establish an effective procedure for communicating Court orders and ensuring the prompt filing of reply affidavits.

Additionally, the Court pointed out the casual approach of the respondents in seeking time to file affidavits, despite specific Court orders. It observed that such behavior disregarded the fact that the petitioners, who are represented by advocates, incurred costs and expenses with each adjournment. The Court noted that the costs awarded in this matter could not fully compensate the petitioners for their actual expenses and that the State Government was also incurring significant legal fees due to the failure of the concerned department to provide timely instructions.

The matter is listed for hearing next on September 12, 2024.