The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by the Union Government that challenged orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, observing that the petition was presented after an inordinate delay and was incomplete in its presentation. The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan, made clear that the petition lacked necessary records and was therefore “half-baked,” leading the Court to dismiss it with costs. The bench noted that rather than proceeding diligently, the government had allowed a significant lapse in time—about three years—between the Tribunal’s orders and the filing of the petition, which undermined its case and warranted judicial admonishment. The Court’s remark about “half-baked petitions” underscored its concern about incomplete filings and the need for litigants, including government bodies, to ensure that petitions filed before the Court are complete and properly supported.
The petition by the Union of India sought to set aside the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated October 20, 2022, which had allowed an Original Application filed by one Inder Pal, and also the dismissal of the Department’s Review Application on December 7, 2022. However, despite the Tribunal proceedings concluding in 2022, the writ petition impugning the Tribunal’s decisions was instituted only in December 2025. The bench criticised this delay and pointed out the irony that one of the very orders challenged in the petition was not even attached to the filing, demonstrating a lack of seriousness and procedural care in preparing the petition.
In its order, the Court directed that costs of ₹25,000 be imposed on the Union Government, specifying that this amount should be deposited with the Poor Patients Fund at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. Furthermore, the Bench clarified that these costs were to be recoverable from the officer who decided to file the petition, reflecting a strong message that public authorities must exercise greater caution and responsibility when approaching the High Court. The imposition of costs payable to a public fund highlighted the Court’s intention to use such measures to deter careless litigation and to reinforce the idea that procedural lapses by the government in legal filings are not to be taken lightly.
While dismissing the petition, the Court granted the Union Government liberty to file a fresh plea in relation to the matter, provided that it is accompanied by the complete record and that the costs ordered are paid. This indicated that the Court was not closing the door on legitimate grievances raised by the government but was insisting that any future filing must be properly prepared, timely, and complete. The liberty to refile came with the clear condition that the government must address the procedural deficiencies that led to the dismissal, including attaching all relevant orders and records so that the Court could meaningfully adjudicate the issues raised.
The Court’s observations in this matter reflect a broader judicial insistence on procedural propriety, emphasizing that courts of law depend on parties to present their cases in a diligent and complete manner. The bench’s criticism of the delayed filing and incomplete petition was rooted in the principle that justice cannot be properly administered when petitions are presented without due regard to essential procedural requirements. By dismissing the petition with costs, the Court reaffirmed the importance of timely and complete filings, even when the litigant is the government itself.
The proceedings revealed that the Tribunal’s orders in question had longstanding implications, and the Court’s strict response highlighted judicial intolerance for delays that could prejudice effective review or undermine the finality of administrative decisions. The Court’s approach underscored that it would not entertain belated attempts to challenge Tribunal decisions where there was a significant gap between the conclusion of the proceedings and the filing of the petition, particularly when no explanation was offered for the delay. The reasoning behind imposing costs against the government officer who authorised the filing was indicative of the Court’s resolve to hold even state actors accountable for lapses in litigating before the judiciary.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court’s decision to dismiss the Union Government’s petition as “half-baked” and to impose costs was a strong judicial response to procedural neglect in legal filings. By directing that the costs be paid into a fund for the benefit of poor patients and by allowing the government to refile with a complete record, the Court balanced judicial censure with procedural fairness, reinforcing standards that all litigants must meet when seeking judicial intervention.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.