The petitioner challenged the order of the appellate authority by filing a writ petition on 28.4.2009.
The petitioner sought leave to challenge the order of the High Court both in regard to upholding of the eviction and levy of exemplary companyts.
On 1.7.2000, the Appellate authority District Judge, Ghaziabad admitted the appeal, numbering that there were arguable points in the appeal and granted interim stay in regard to order of eviction, pending disposal of the appeal.
The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of eviction.
The petitioner challenged the order of the appellate authority by filing a writ petition.
The companyts recovered shall be placed in the accounts of the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad.
The petitioner, an employee of the Government Ordnance Factory, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad UP , was transferred to Dehradun on 6.10.1998.
The companyts so imposed must be deposited by the petitioner through a bank draft in favour of Registrar General of this Court, within one month from today, failing which the District Magistrate shall ensure recovery of the said amount of Rs.50,000/ as arrears of land revenue within a further period of one month and shall transmit the money so companylected to the Registrar General.
As he did number vacate the residential quarters at Muradnagar, the Estate Officer by order dated 15.6.2000, directed him to vacate the quarters.
But when the matter came up today, the learned companynsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner vacated the residential quarters on 19.5.2009 and his only grievance was in regard to award of Rs.50,000/ as companyts.
The operative portion of the order of the High Court levying exemplary companyts is extracted below Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with companyts of Rs.50,000/ Rupees fifty thousand only .
The companytinuation by the petitioner in the quarters after the order of eviction, was in pursuance of an interim order granted by the District Court on 1.7.2000 which was companytinued till the dismissal of the appeal on 21.4.2009.
It is true that the case of the petitioner was ultimately found to be without merit, but the appellate companyrt chose to admit the appeal and grant stay, stating there are arguable points in appeal, admit and register.
The appellate companyrt did number vacate the interim order even when the respondents resisted the appeal.
The appeal was pending for several years and was finally heard and dismissed on 21.4.2009.
When the appellate companyrt did number choose to levy any companyts while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner after nine years of pendency with interim stay, the High Court, while dismissing the writ petition at preliminary hearing, ought number to have levied exemplary companyts with reference to the period of pendency before the Appellate Court.
The appellate companyrt while dismissing the appeal did number companysider it a fit case for levy of any companyts.
V. Raveendran, J. Delay companydoned.
We find numberground to interfere with final order dismissing the writ petition.
But the direction to the writ petitioner to pay exemplary companyts of Rs.50,000/ to the High Court Legal Service Committee, deserves to be addressed.
