Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.Suresh Kumar, G.Arul Murugan, JJ.
The Director of Town and Country Planning and ors. – Appellants
Versus
M.S.Chinnachamy and ors. – Respondents
W.A.(MD)No.1177 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)No.9080 of 2024
Decided On : 19-07-2024
COSTS - WRIT APPEAL - The court addressed the appeal concerning the imposition of costs by the Writ Court. The appellants sought to set aside the cost awarded against them, indicating that they were not contesting the merits of the Writ Court's decision. The court referenced a similar case where costs were also set aside, leading to the conclusion that the imposition of costs was modified while the rest of the Writ Court's order remained intact.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Appeal was filed against an order from the Writ Court concerning W.P.(MD)No.6776 of 2023, specifically challenging the costs imposed on the appellant Department.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were only contesting the costs and not the merits of the Writ Court's decision. It noted a precedent where similar costs were set aside, leading to a modification of the cost order.
Issues: Whether the costs imposed by the Writ Court should be set aside as requested by the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that since both parties agreed to set aside the costs, and in light of a similar previous ruling, the imposition of costs was not warranted.
Result: The Writ Appeal was partly allowed, modifying the order to remove the costs while leaving the rest of the Writ Court's order unchanged.
JUDGMENT :
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 27.09.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.6776 of 2023.
This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(MD)No.6776 of 2023, which is a part of the group of Writ Petitions disposed of by the Writ Court, by order dated 27.09.2023 in a common order.
2.Though the order passed by the Writ Court has been questioned in this Writ Appeal, when the case is taken up for admission, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would contend that only against awarding of cost by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned, this Writ Appeal has been filed. Therefore, to that extent, if the cost imposed by the learned Single Judge is interfered with, the appellants would be satisfied without canvassing the points on merits with regard to the order passed by the Writ Court.
3.He would further submit that in the similar line already a Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD)No.414 of 2024 was allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 19.03.2024, by passing the following orders:-
3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has no objection for setting aside the cost imposed by the Writ Court.
4.In view of the said submissions made by both the parties, this Writ Appeal stands allowed by setting aside the cost imposed on the appellant Department by the Writ Court. We make it clear that the rest of the portion of the order passed by the Writ Court remains unaltered. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
4.Recording the said submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants, following the said order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 19.03.2024, this Writ Appeal is partly allowed, where the order passed by the Writ Court, which is impugned herein, is to be sustained except the awarding of the cost. To that extent, the order impugned is modified.
5.Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
The court established that costs can be contested separately from the merits of a case, and that prior rulings can influence decisions on cost impositions.
A legal action becomes infructuous when the underlying cause for the action ceases to exist, warranting dismissal of the appeal.
Writ appeals can be dismissed as infructuous when the underlying cause of action has ceased to exist.
The court established that costs imposed by a Tribunal can be reviewed and set aside if compliance with the Tribunal's orders is demonstrated and the affected party does not insist on the payment.
The resolution of grievances in employment matters can lead to the dismissal of related writ appeals when no further issues remain.
All petitioners must be included in a writ appeal challenging a common order to ensure maintainability.
A recorded compromise between disputing parties can effectively resolve the matter, eliminating the need for further judicial intervention.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
