Holding

The Trust's objections were untenable; the relief granted by the State Commission is justified and the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

Summary

The Bikaner Urban Improvement Trust (UIT) allotted plot A‑303 to Mohan Lal in 1991, but in 1998 laid a road through the plot without notice or acquisition proceedings. After the Trust ignored his complaints, Lal filed a consumer complaint in 2005 seeking restoration of the plot or an alternative site with compensation. The District Forum ordered a refund of the allotment price; the State Commission allowed an appeal, directing allotment of an alternative plot and a nominal compensation of Rs 5,000. The Trust challenged the relief on three grounds – alleged negligence of the allottee, lack of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and limitation – all of which were rejected. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upheld the State Commission’s order, and warned against frivolous litigation by government bodies.

Issues considered

Whether the Trust's laying of a road through the allotted plot amounts to a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Whether the consumer complaint is barred by the two‑year limitation period.
Whether the allottee’s alleged failure to protest the encroachment defeats his right to relief.
Whether the relief granted by the State Commission (alternative plot and nominal compensation) is appropriate.

Legislation cited

Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Subjects

consumer protectiongovernment litigationunnecessary litigationdeficiency in servicelimitation periodurban developmentadministrative lawrestorationcompensation

Judgment

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 550

A URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER ~·c~
v.
MOHAN LAL
(Special Leave Petition [C] No. 29852 of 2009)
...._

OCTOBER 30, 2009
8
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.]

Government Litigation: 't·"'

c Litigation by State authorities - Need to eliminate
unnecessary litigation - Allotment of plot by Urban
Improvement Trust - Improvement Trust later illegally laying
road on the plot - When allottee claimed the plot and/or
compensation before consumer fora, State authorities
...
D resisting the claim on frivolous grounds - Held: It is a matter
of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigation by .,..
governments and statutory authorities are on the increase -
Statutory Authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in
public interest - They should be responsible litigants - They
cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a
E callous and highhanded manner - They can not behave like
some private litigants with profiteering motives - Nor can they
resort to unjust enrichment - They are expected to show
remorse or regret when their officers act negligently or in an j
overbearing manner - When glaring wrong acts by their
F officers is brought to their notice, for which there is no
explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution/
restoration to the extent possible with appropriate
compensation - Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine
grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted
G litigation requires to be corrected - The reluctance to take
decisions, or tendency to challenge all orders against them,
is not the policy of the governments or statutory authorities,
but. is attributable to some officers who are responsible for

H 550
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER v. 551
MOHAN LAL
taking decisions and/or officers ;n charge of litigation - Their A
·--1 reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency to protect
themselves against any future accusations of wrong decision
making, or worse, of improper motives for any decision
making - Unless their insecurity and fear is addressed,
officers will continue to pass on the responsibility of decision B
making to courts and Tribunals - The Central Government
is now attempting to deal with this issue by formulating
realistic and p;actical norms for defending cases filed against
the government and for filing appeals and revisions against
adverse decisions, thereby, eliminating unnecessary litigation c
- The State Governments and the statutory authorities, who
have more litigations Jhan the Central Government, should
also make genuine efforts to eliminate unnecessary litigation
- Vexatious and unnecessary litigation have been clogging
the wheels of justice for too long, making it difficult for courts
0
and Tribunals to provide easy and speedy access to justice
to bona fide and needy litigants - In the instant case, what is
granted by the State Commission is the minimum relief in the
facts and circumstances, that is, the direction for allotment of
an alternative plot with a nominal compensation of Rs. 50001 E
- - But instead of remedying the wrong, by complying with the
decision of the Consumer fora, the Improvement Trust is
trying to brazen out its illegal act by contending that the
allottee should have protested when it illegally laid the road
in his plot - It has persisted with its unreasonable and unjust
stand by indulging in unnecessary litigation by approaching F
the National Commission and then the Supreme Court - The
Trust should sensitise its\. officers to serve the public rather
than justify their dictatorial acts - It should avoid such an
unnecessary litigation - Urban development - Administrative
Law - Redressal of grievances of public by State authorities G
- Consumer Protection.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
29852 of 2009.
H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A From the Judgment & Order dated 11.11.2008 of the l- •
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New ~-
Delhi in Revision Petition No. 4120 of 2008.

Aruneshwar Gupta for the Petitioner.
B The Order of the Court was delivered by

ORDER

R.V. RAVEENDRAN J. 1. The petitioner before us is the
C Bikaner Urban Improvement Trust. It allotted a Plot (A-303)
measuring 450 sq.ft. under its Karnr Nagar Scheme to the
respondent in the year 1991. Respondent paid the allotment
price (lease premium) of Rs.3,443/- in 1992 and took
possession in 1997. In the year 1998, the petitioner-Trust
allotted to respondents and delivered possession of the
D adjacent strip measuring 150 ft.
y
2. Thereafter, the Trust without notice to the respondent
and without resorting to any acquisition proceedings, laid a road
in the said plot. The layout map prepared and made available
E by the Trust in the year 2002 did not show the existence of Plot
A-303 or its adjoining strip. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent
met the officers of the Trust and complained to them. He also
gave a written complaint seeking restoration of the plot. As
there was no response, he approached the District Consumer
F Forum in 2005, praying for restoration of the plot or for allotment
of an alternative site and award of damages of Rs.200,000/-.
The District Forum disposed of the complaint directing refund
of the allotment price paid with interest at 9% per annum. The
State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent
G and directed allotment of an alternative plot and also awarded
Rs.5,000/- as compensation. The National Commission
dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner Trust.
Special leave 'is sp.ught to challenge the said order of the
National Corl10,ission: · - ··:· ·:.
;. ·' •·'

H
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER v. 553
MOHAN LAL [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

3. The Trust does not dispute any of the facts. It has no A
explanation to offer for its negligence or highhanded action of
taking over the allotted plot without notice, acquisition, or
consent. Nevertheless, the Trust challenges the relief granted,
on three technical grounds:
8
(i) As the respondent was negligent in protecting his
possession and did not protest or complain when the Trust
laid the road in his plot, he is not entitled to any relief.
• .f
(ii) The action of the Trust, even if it was an illegal
encroachment, did not amount to 'deficiency in service' and c
therefore the respondent could not invoke the jurisdiction
of the forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(iii) The complaint was barred by limitation as it was filed
,. beyond two years from the occurrence of the cause of D
action, and the respondent did not show sufficient cause
'f for condonation of delay.

These contentions have been rejected. The decision of the
State Commission rejecting the above contentions is just and
reasonable. The National Commission was justified in not E
interfering with the said decision. We are satisfied that no case
is made out to grant special leave under Article 136 of the
~ Constitution.

4. It is a matter of concern that such frivolous and unjust F
litigation by governments and statutory authorities are on the
increase. Statutory Authorities exist to discharge statutory
functions in public interest. They should be responsible litigants.
They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a
callous and high handed manner. They can not behave like
G
some private litigants with profiteering motives. Nor can they
resort to unjust enrichment. They are expected to show remorse
or regret when their officers act negligently or in an overbearing
manner. When glaring wrong acts by their officers is brought
to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the
H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A least that is expected is restitution/restoration to the extent
possible with appropriate compensation. Their harsh attitude \-
in regard to genuine grievances of the public and their
indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires to be corrected.

5. This Court has repeatedly expressed the view thatthe
B
governments and statutory authorities should be model or ideal
litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious,
technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice.
We may refer to some of the decisions in this behalf. ")-'""

c (5.1.) In Dilbagh Rai Jarry vs. Union of India [1973 (3)
SCC 554] where this Court extracted with approval, the
following statement (from an earlier decision of the Kerala High
Court):

"The State, under our Constitution, undertakes economic /
D ./
--
activities in a vast and widening public sector and
inevitably gets involved in disputes with private individuals. )'

But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary
party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens
by hook or by crook; for the State's interest is to meet
E
honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never
to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to
avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply
because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The
State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on
-I
F immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the
case is weak, government shows a willingness to settle the
dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations
which move private parties to fight in court. The lay-out on
litigation costs and executive time by the State and its
G agencies is so staggering these days because of the large
amount of litigation in which it is involved th~t a positive
and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume of law
suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into forensic
show-downs where a reasonable adjustment is feasible
H and ever offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER v. 555
MOHAN LAL [RV. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
just terms, giving the legal mentors of government some A
initiative and authority in this behalf. I am not indulging in
any judicial homily but only echoing the dynamic national
policy on State litigation evolved at a Conference of Law
Ministers of India way back in 1957.

5.2. In Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International by
8
its Proprietor v. Venkatadri (Dead) by L.Rs. [(1979) 4 SCC
.., -f
176] held:

"2 ... It is high time that governments and public
authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical c
pleas for the' purpose of defeating legitimate claims of
citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of
course, if a government or a public authority takes up a
technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is
>-
well founded, it has to be upheld by the court, but what we D
feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up
1
by a government or a public authority, unless of course the
claim is not well-founded and by reason of delay in filing
it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim
has become unavailable .... " E
(5.3.) In a three Judge Bench judgment of Bhag Singh &
Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh through LAC,
\ Chandigarh [(1985) 3 sec 737]:
,.
"3 ... The State Government must do what is fair and just F
to the citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in
cases where tax or revenue is received or recovered
without protest or where the State Government would
otherwise be irretrievably be prejudiced, take up a
technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the G
citizen."

6. Unwarranted litigation by governments and statutory
authorities basically stem from the two general baseless
assumptions by their officers. They are:
H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A (i) All claims against the government/statutory authorities \,-
should be viewed as illegal and should be resisted and
fought up to the highest court of the land.

(ii) If taking a decision on an issue could be avoided, then
it is prudent not to decide the issue and let the aggrieved
B
party approach the Court and secures a decision.

The reluctance to take decisions, or tendency to challenge all
orders against them, is not the policy of the governments or )-·"
statutory authorities, but is attributable to some officers who are
c responsible for taking decisions and/or officers in charge of
litigation. Their reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency
to protect themselves against any future accusations of wrong
decision making, or worse, of improper motives for any decision
making. Unless their insecurity and fear is addressed, officers
(
'
D will continue to pass on the responsibility of decision making
to courts and Tribunals. The Central Government is now y
attempting to deal with this issue by formulating realistic and
practical norms for defending cases filed against the
government and for filing appeals and revisions against
E adverse decisions, thereby, eliminating unnecessary litigation.
But, it is not sufficient if the Central Government alone
undertakes such an exercise. The State Governments and the
statutory authorities, who have more litigations than the Central
Government, should also make genuine efforts to eliminate -I
unne<;:essary litigation. Vexatious and unnecessary litigation ~
F
have been clogging the wheels of justice, for too long making
it difficult for courts and Tribunals to provide easy and speedy
access to justice to bona fide and needy litigants.

7. In this case, what is granted by the State Commission
G is the minimum relief in the facts and circumstances, that is to
direct allotment of an alternative plot with a nominal ..j..

compensation of Rs.5000/- But instead of remedying the
wrong, by complying with the decision of the Consumer fora,
the Improvement Trust is trying to brazen out its illegal act by
H contending that the allottee should have been protested when
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER v. 557
MOHAN LAL [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
it illegally laid the road in his plot. It has persisted with its A
unreasonable and unjust stand by indulging in unnecessary
litigation by approaching the National Commission and then this
Court. The Trust should sensitise its officers to serve the public
rather than justify their dictatorial acts. It should avoid such an
unnecessary litigation. 8

8. Delay condoned. The special leave petition is
dismissed .

• -t R.P. Special Leave Petition dismissed.