Delhi High Court: C. Hari Shankar, J., expressed that, Unwarranted and needless hypersensitivity is not expected of Judicial Officers, who are expected, at all times to maintain composure and poise, befitting the office they hold.
In the present matter, the petitioner was aggrieved by the imposition of costs of Rs 5 lacs for misusing the process of law and causing inconvenience to the Government machinery by the Additional Rent Controller.
Analysis and Decision
High Court while analysing the matter, stated that it was unable to understand the reason for the ARC to have expressed the sentiments that he had chosen to express in the impugned order.
The Bench found no justification for the ARC to take exception at all, much less such a serious exception, to the fact that the petitioner had fairly agreed to allow the respondents to continue in the tenanted premises for two more months.
Further, the Court added that it was ironical that an eminently fair attitude, exhibited by the petitioner aroused the wrath of the ARC and invited, on the head of the petitioner costs of Rs 5 lacs.
Court expressed its discomfiture at the manner in which the impugned order was passed and in order to not prejudice the career of the ARC, who was a young Judicial Officer, Bench deemed it appropriate to close the present matter by setting aside the impugned order insofar as it imposed the costs of Rs 5 lacs with a word of advice to the ARC to ensure that, in future, a great degree of temperance is exhibited by him in the discharge of his judicial functions.
In view of the above, the petition was allowed. [Suchit Gupta v. Gaurav Saini, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1273, decided on 28-4-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
For the Petitioner: Mr Kunal Kalra, Advocate