The court upheld the imposition of costs for abuse of process due to the petitioner's misrepresentation of facts and failure to challenge relevant prior orders.

ORDER :

(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.)

1. The delay of eight days in filing the instant appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The Delay Condonation Application is hereby allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Office shall allot regular number to the appeal.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby while dismissing the writ petition in limine, recording that the writ petition is an abuse of process of law, cost quantified to Rs.50,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner, to be deposited with the Gujarat State Legal Service Authority, within the period of four weeks’ from the date of the order.

3. Mr. Priyan Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, at the outset, would submit that the challenge in the writ petition was to the interlocutory order passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) in Revision No.136 of 2024. However, the said revision has now been adjudicated finally and while setting aside the order passed by the Collector dated 08.10.2024, the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration.

4. The submission, thus, is that the appellants herein have confined their appeal to the challenge to the cost imposed by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petition is an abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that there was no question of the abuse of the process on the part of the petition, inasmuch as, the petitioner had simply challenged the order passed by the SSRD in restraining the Collector from proceeding further. There is no reason for the learned Single Judge to form an opinion of misuse of the process by the petitioner so as to impose a heavy amount towards cost.

5. Taking note of this submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, pertinent is to note that the appellant herein namely the original petitioner sought to challenge the mutation entry No.1657 dated 17.11.2007 by filing an appeal in the year 2023, which was registered as RTS / DL / Case No.15 of 2023 and by order dated 12.07.2023 the delay in filing the appeal had been condoned.

6. It seems that the said order was challenged before the Collector by filing the RTS / RA / 343 / 2023 which had been dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 08.10.2024. The Revision Application was, thus, preferred before the SSRD challenging the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Collector. Vide order dated 14.11.2024, in Revision Application No.136 of 2024, the SSRD had stayed the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Collector in Revision Application No.343 of 2023.

7. It was noted by the learned Single Judge that the original petitioner / appellant herein did not challenge the interlocutory order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the SSRD. It is further noted by the learned Single Judge that inspite of the order dated 14.11.2024, staying the order dated 08.10.2024, the Collector had proceeded to adjudicate the matter pending before him against the final order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the Deputy Collector in RTS Case No.15 of 2023, affirming the mutation entry No.1657 dated 17.11.2007.

8. It is recorded by the learned Single Judge that inspite of the stay of the proceedings by the SSRD, whereunder the Collector had affirmed the order of condonation of delay in the presentation of the appeal passed by the Deputy Collector, the Collector had proceeded to decide the validity of the order of Deputy Collector passed on matter on merits.

9. The learned Single Judge has recorded that the petitioner intentionally did not challenge the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the SSRD till the SSRD, vide order dated 27.11.2024, had restrained the Collector from further proceeding in the matter on the merits.

10. While justifying the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the SSRD, it is opined by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner, by not challenging the order dated 14.11.2024, would be prohibited from further challenging the