{"id":16100,"date":"2024-01-23T05:24:34","date_gmt":"2024-01-23T05:24:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newstimers.com\/index.php\/2024\/01\/23\/madhya-pradesh-hc-pulls-up-state-govt-over-frivolous-review-plea-slaps-fine\/"},"modified":"2024-01-23T05:24:34","modified_gmt":"2024-01-23T05:24:34","slug":"madhya-pradesh-hc-pulls-up-state-govt-over-frivolous-review-plea-slaps-fine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newstimers.com\/index.php\/2024\/01\/23\/madhya-pradesh-hc-pulls-up-state-govt-over-frivolous-review-plea-slaps-fine\/","title":{"rendered":"Madhya Pradesh HC pulls up state govt over \u2018frivolous\u2019 review plea, slaps fine"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

The Madhya Pradesh high court has pulled up the state government over a \u201cfrivolous\u201d review petition related to the pending arrears of a Bhopal college lab technician, saying its advisors do not understand which cases are applicable for such pleas.<\/p>\n

<\/picture> <\/span>
The state higher education department principal secretary filed the review petition. (Getty Images\/iStockphoto)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

The state higher education department principal secretary filed the review petition on behalf of the college principal after a single bench of the court in December ordered a resolution of the matter within a stipulated period without going into the merits of the case.<\/p>\n

Stay tuned for all the latest updates on Ram Mandir! Click here<\/a><\/div>\n

Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, who heard the review petition, referred to the grounds cited in it and said he was flabbergasted. \u201cThe nature of direction was as axiomatic as innocuous giving leeway to the authorities to decide the representation considering the entitlement of claim raised therein by the writ petitioner.\u201d<\/p>\n

He asked how could a government advocate move such a review petition despite being well-versed in the pendency of cases in courts. \u201c…filing frivolous petition will definitely escalate the burden not only upon the courts but also on the office of advocate general,\u201d he said. \u201cThe instant review is [a] glaring example of absurdity and not only the government advocate but the government officer, who has sworn an affidavit in the capacity of officer-in-charge of the case are responsible.\u201d<\/p>\n

Justice Dwivedi said government advocates and officers should realise that it is nothing but an augmentation of financial burden upon the public exchequer. He cited the pendency and called it a need of hour for everyone, especially the government, to evade frivolous litigation.<\/p>\n

\u201cNotably, it is gathered sometimes that the officers of the state, out of their personal antipathies, just to settle their personal score with the petitioner, unnecessary drag him\/her in litigation and make all endeavours to preclude them from enjoying the fruits of the order of the court.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court directed holding the college principal responsible while dismissing the review petition and slapping \u20b9<\/span>1,00,000 fine. It asked the advocate general to examine how such litigation was filed.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n