GAURI SHANKER Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri H.N. Shukla, learned Advocate, who appeared in support of this writ petition and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 17 -2 -2005 (Annexure -31 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad. There is further prayer that respondent No. 1 be directed not to proceed with the application (Annexure -27 to the writ petition) and proceedings on that application be dropped.

(3.) THE comment on the role of learned Advocates as made above finds strong approval from the observation as made by the Apex Court as far back as in 1986 in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. and Ors. reported in AIR 1986 SC 1370. The kind of observation as made by the Apex Court in 1986 gains more importance to the present days and it is now the right time that it is to be followed in its true sense as about 18 years has further passed when observation from Apex Court came and now the litigation stood multiplied beyond comprehension. The caution by way of suggestion as given by the Apex Court is to be quoted here for the benefit of everybody concerned with the issue: “In the case before us, as if to befit the might of the financial giants involved, innumerable documents were filed in the High Court, a truly mountainous record was built up running to several thousand pages and more have been added in this Court. Indeed, and there was no way out, we also had the advantage of listening to learned and long drawn -out intelligent and often ingenious arguments, advanced and dutifully heard by us. In the name of justice, we paid due homage to the causes of the high and mighty by devoting precious time to them, reduced, as we were, at times to the position of helpless spectator. Such is the nature of our judicial process that we do this with the knowledge that more worthy causes of lesser men who have been long waiting in the queue have been blocked thereby and the queue has consequently lengthened. Perhaps the time is ripe for imposing a time limit on the length fit submission and page limit on the length of judgments. The time is probably ripe for insistence on brief written submissions backed by short and time - bound oral submissions. The time is certainly ripe for brief and modest arguments and concise and chaste judgments. In this very case we heard arguments for 28 days and our judgment runs to 181 pages and both could have been much shortened. We hope that we are not hoping in vain that the vicious circle will soon break and that this will be the last of such mammoth cases. We are doing our best to disentangle the system from a situation into which it has been forced over the years by the existing procedures. There is now a public realisation of the growing weight of the judicial burden. The co -operation of the bar too is forthcoming though in slow measure. Drastic solutions are necessary. We will find them and we do hope to achieve results sooner than expected. So much for sanctimonious sermonizing and now back to our case.”