Pendency of defective review application does not suspend compliance with court order to deposit exemplary costs within stipulated time; only court can extend time, recovery proceedings justified.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Upadhyay, J.

The Court at the initial stage of hearing had passed an order whereby notices were issued to Respondent no.1, however, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for interim relief, when the Court declined to grant the interim relief then the counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be decided finally. Thus, the writ petition is being heard and decided at the admission stage itself.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers:

“(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the office order no. 20874/UHC-service section-1, dated 01.12.2025, and Office memorandum no. 277/UHC-Service Section-1, dated 7th January, 2026, and a Letter dated 07 January, 2025 issued by District Magistrate, Garhwal digitally signed on 07.01.2026 (Annexure no.2 to the writ petition).”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 439 (S/B) of 2025, which was decided on 14.10.2025. Para 10 to 13 of the order dated 14.10.2025 reads as under:

“10. The instant Writ Petition, despite the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, setting aside the order of removal, and directing the reinstatement of the fourth respondent, and granting liberty to the University/ employer to continue with the enquiry, if any, the present Writ Petition is clearly an act of overreach. There being a clear direction from the Hon’ble Apex Court, reserving liberty only to the University/ employer to carry forward the process, the instant Writ Petition is clearly vitiated by mala fides, and appears to be an attempt to create a supervening circumstance, and nullify the interim relief granted by a Coordinate Bench.

11. This Bench had clearly indicated to the petitioner’s counsel that the petition lacks bona fides, and it was also pointed out to the petitioner’s counsel that this Court would not be sitting in appeal over the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In fact after a few minutes of hearing it was also clearly indicated to the petitioner’s counsel that cost would be imposed, and that the cost would be an exemplary cost, and in fact certain figures were also mentioned to the petitioner’s counsel. Despite the same, the petitioner’s counsel continued with representation and demanded that the submissions be considered.

12. Petitioner’s counsel would place reliance on Annexure No. 10 dated 26.06.2019, Annexure No. 11 dated 11.07.2019, Annexure No. 13 dated 02.12.2019, Annexure No. 14 dated 20.09.2021, Annexure No. 15 – the inquiry report dated 18.11.2021 and Annexure No. 16 dated 11.12.2021. We have recorded the dates for a particular purpose. All these dates are prior to the date of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court i.e. 16.04.2024. The issues have been canvassed before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is demonstrated by a reading of the paragraphs culled out hereinabove. Despite the same being pointed out, the counsel for the petitioner insisted that the matter be heard and despite this Bench expressing that it is not inclined to sit in appeal over the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner’s counsel continued with the submissions and, in the course of the submissions, it was also submitted that a Review Petition of the order dated 16.04.2024 of the Hon’ble Apex Court has also been filed. If that be so, then the instant Writ Petition is a clear case of abuse of the process of Court.

13. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed with exemplary cost, with cost quantified at Rupees Five Lakhs. The cost shall be deposited into the account of the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority within six weeks, failing which the Registrar General s