The
Bombay High Court recently took a dig at the Central government's "ease of
doing business", and said while it was mindful of the pendency of cases in
courts, it was the government that was by far the largest litigant and the one
that most often sought adjournments.
A
division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata, which was on October 5
hearing a petition filed by one Ramkali Gupta in 2016 over property-related
issues, said it was no stranger to repeated assertions from the Union
government regarding the pendency of cases and impediments allegedly caused by
the courts.
The
bench in its order said it was shocked to note that Gupta's petition has been
pending for seven years and that since June this year, the plea has been
adjourned at the request of the Union government so that the additional
solicitor general could appear.
We
are equally mindful, and we are constrained to say this, that we are no
strangers to repeated assertions from the Union government itself regarding
pendency of cases, mounting arrears, frequent adjournments, and impediments
allegedly caused by our courts to what the government calls 'the ease of doing
business', the bench said.
Conveniently
overlooked in all these assertions is the fact that it is the government that
is by far the largest litigant and it is the government that most often seeks
adjournments, frequently needlessly, the court said, citing the present plea as
an example.
The
conduct of the Union government in the present matter does not leave much to be
desired. It leaves everything to be desired, it said.
The
court said it does not expect the additional solicitor general to appear in
every single matter involving the Union of India.
Obviously,
it is not unreasonable to expect that there will be perfectly competent
advocates from his office who will be able to lighten his load and assist him
in discharging the duties of his office. We see no reason why no one else is
prepared to go on with this matter, the order said.
The
court said the issue raised in the petition was narrow and deserved to be heard
and disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself.
Given
this, we are entirely unable to appreciate, and indeed we express our strongest
displeasure of applications for repeated adjournments, the court said.
The bench while adjourning the plea for the last
time said it was doing so only out of courtesy to the additional solicitor
general.