Meghalaya High Court has imposed a hefty fine of ₹10 lakh on the Public Works Department (PWD) for inundating the court with excessive paperwork, a tactic commonly employed by government litigants and public sector undertakings (PSUs) to discourage thorough examination and prompt adjournments. The court emphasized that unworthy litigants with frivolous causes must abandon their habit of exploiting the court's delays, and the only way to ensure this is by imposing substantial costs.

Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W Diengdoh made these observations while ruling on a case involving the PWD's unnecessary litigation against a contractor. The court expressed concern that PSUs and government litigants have adopted a fashionable approach of inundating courts with sheafs of paper, hoping that the sheer volume would dissuade judges from delving deeply into the matter and grant adjournments to delay the inevitable.

The case before the court pertained to a dispute between the PWD and a contractor regarding a contract for the two-laning of a highway. The contract stipulated that disputes should be referred to a Dispute Review Expert Board (DREB), whose decision would be final and binding unless challenged within 28 days. In 2017, the DREB ruled in favor of the contractor, awarding them over ₹117 crore on account of interest for delayed payments and unpaid bills. A separate decision was rendered by the DREB a year later to address remaining disputes related to contract delays and disruptions.

The PWD failed to comply with or contest the 2017 decision and instead claimed it would appeal the DREB's order. However, the contract explicitly required disputes to be referred to arbitration within a specified period. The contractor subsequently initiated arbitration proceedings in 2018. During the initial proceedings, the PWD did not raise any objections to including the DREB's decisions in the arbitration. However, several months later, the PWD filed an application arguing that the claims pertaining to the DREB's decisions were not arbitrable under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act.

The arbitral tribunal considered the PWD's silence and failure to raise disputes regarding the DREB's decisions. Consequently, the tribunal determined that the PWD could no longer object to the total amount awarded to the contractor. Dissatisfied, the PWD appealed the decision to the High Court, which deemed the appeal a complete waste of time and a reckless exercise by an irresponsible appellant.

The court criticized the PWD for its failure to raise important issues regarding duplication of interest during previous proceedings with the DREB. It also questioned the PWD's assertion that the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways should be party to the proceedings, labeling it a ludicrous claim. The court expressed concern that such behavior wastes taxpayers' money since officials responsible for the appellant's actions face no personal consequences.

Representatives from the PWD, including Advocate General A Kumar, Additional Senior Government Advocate S Sengupta, and Government Advocates S Sahay, AS Pandey, and S Laloo, appeared in court. The respondent-contractor was represented by Advocates R Prakash, K Ch Gautam, K Tiwari, S Gangar, and A Pandey.

The Meghalaya High Court's imposition of a ₹10 lakh fine on the PWD sends a strong message to unworthy litigants engaging in frivolous causes, urging them to abandon the practice of preying on the court's delays. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of imposing actual costs to deter such misadventures and ensure the efficient functioning of the judiciary.

Click Here To Read