Allahabad High Court imposes Rs 25k cost on State Govt for Inefficiency of Standing Counsel

Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

After the hearing in the matter went on for ten minutes on Monday before the bench of Justice Abdul Moin, the standing counsel for the state prayed for some time to study the matter

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 upon the Uttar Pradesh Government for the apparent lack of preparedness exhibited by the standing counsel, causing a 10-minute delay in the court's proceedings.

After the hearing in the matter went on for ten minutes on Monday before the bench of Justice Abdul Moin, the standing counsel for the state prayed for some time to study the matter. Court, though allowed one week's time, it imposed a cost upon the state. 

The bench ordered, "As the matter has been adjourned after hearing for around 10 minutes, a cost of Rs 25000/- is imposed upon the respondent State for its counsel having wasted precious judicial time of the Court in as much as a request for studying the matter could have been made by learned Standing Counsel as soon as the case was taken up and not when sufficient time has been spent by the Court and by learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter".

Notably, on Monday, the same bench in two other matters also pointed out the inadequacy of the standing counsel in providing legal assistance to the court. 

In the case of Dileep Kumar Dube v. Additional Commissioner, Administration, 2nd Devipatan Division, Gonda And 2 Others, the court directed the Principal Secretary (Law) of the State of Uttar Pradesh to submit a personal affidavit addressing the process behind the appointment of the Standing Counsel for the State.

Failing which, the court indicated that it may summon the Principal Secretary ( Law) before it.

Regarding the cost imposed in the case at hand, court ordered that it be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Lucknow within a week initially by the State Government to be recovered from the persons responsible for the aforesaid fiasco.

Case Title: Rajit Ram Verma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others