Supreme Court Summons Municipal Chief, Citing "Careless" Conduct from Litigants and Officials

NEW DELHI – In a stern message underscoring the paramount importance of procedural diligence and respect for judicial orders, the Supreme Court of India has summoned the Commissioner of the Jabalpur Municipal Corporation to appear in person. The order came during a hearing on a petition concerning the alleged regularisation of illegal construction, where a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan expressed significant displeasure with the non-appearance of municipal officials and procedural lapses by the petitioner's counsel.

The Court's decision highlights a growing judicial intolerance for carelessness from all parties involved in a litigation, signalling that substantive merits of a case can be jeopardised by a failure to adhere to fundamental procedural requirements.

A Tale of Two Lapses: Non-Compliance and Negligent Service

The case, Rajnish Kumar Sanghi v. Raj Kemtani , initially caught the Court's attention due to serious allegations that illegal constructions were being unlawfully regularised by municipal authorities. Recognizing the gravity of the matter, the Court, on September 23, had issued a specific and unambiguous directive. It ordered the Municipal Corporation (Respondent No. 3) and its Commissioner (Respondent No. 4) to "depute a responsible officer" to be personally present at the subsequent hearing with all relevant records, including maps, plans, and the regularisation order itself.

However, when the matter was called for hearing on October 30, no representative from the Municipal Corporation was present. The bench was informed that the notice, including by dasti service, was duly served on the corporation on October 24. This conspicuous absence was met with immediate judicial censure.

The counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation attempted to explain the lapse, stating that the corporation's Law Department had only recently received the case files and required more time. This explanation failed to assuage the bench. Justice Pardiwala, dictating the order, reiterated the Court’s previous directive and its subsequent violation.

“Our order... made it abundantly clear that Respondent no. 3 and 4 shall depute a responsible officer to personally remain present before us today with the necessary records,” the bench noted. “We are informed that Respondent no. 3 and 4 are duly served on 24 October... however, no one has appeared today as directed. We direct the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, to be personally present with the records on next hearing. The Commissioner owes an explanation why our order has not been complied with.”

The matter was further complicated by the petitioner’s own procedural failings. The Court observed that the petitioner had failed to serve notice on the primary private parties in the case, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, despite having obtained a dasti order for that very purpose.

Justice Pardiwala turned his admonishment towards the petitioner’s counsel, making it clear that the Court’s patience was wearing thin. “You have been equally careless, so now we are not much concerned about what you have highlighted in the petition,” he remarked orally. “On the first day, we were very much concerned since you pointed out that illegal construction has been very much regularised. You should be concerned about this, but you are not particular.”

The Responsibility of ‘Dasti’ Service

The Court’s sharp rebuke centred on the misuse or neglect of the dasti service mechanism. Dasti service, a provision allowing the litigant to deliver the court's notice personally to the opposing party, is granted to expedite proceedings. Justice Pardiwala emphasized that obtaining such an order places a significant responsibility on the litigant to ensure its execution.

“If you obtain an order from the Court and take dasti, you must ensure the respondents are duly served,” he stated, underscoring a fundamental principle that parties who seek the court's intervention must be diligent in prosecuting their own case. The bench’s oral observation that "if parties are not particular about their case, the Court shouldn't bother," serves as a potent reminder to the bar that judicial concern is not a one-way street; it demands commensurate seriousness from the litigants themselves.

Broader Implications: A Court Demanding Accountability

This case is not an isolated incident but part of a discernible trend within the Supreme Court. The sources note that another bench recently refused to hear a matter where an interlocutory application was filed and listed by the Registry without being served on the opposing counsel first. This pattern suggests a systemic tightening of procedural enforcement, aimed at ensuring fairness, efficiency, and respect for the judicial process.

For municipal corporations and government bodies, the Sanghi case is a clear warning. The summoning of a high-ranking official like a Municipal Commissioner is a measure of the Court’s seriousness. It signals that excuses related to internal bureaucratic delays, such as files moving between departments, will not be entertained as valid reasons for defying explicit judicial orders. The direction for the Commissioner to "be here with records" and provide a "proper explanation" is not merely a procedural step but a demand for institutional accountability.

For legal practitioners, the oral remarks of the bench are instructive. The Court’s initial engagement with the substantive issue of illegal construction was eroded by the procedural laxity of both sides. It demonstrates that even in public interest matters, counsel must exhibit unimpeachable diligence. The failure to serve notice promptly can be perceived by the Court as a lack of genuine interest in the case, potentially weakening the petitioner's standing and the urgency of their claims.

As the Commissioner of the Jabalpur Municipal Corporation prepares to appear before the apex court, the legal community will be watching closely. The outcome of the next hearing will likely reinforce the message that in the halls of justice, procedure is not a mere formality but the very bedrock upon which the substantive rights and duties of parties are adjudicated. Carelessness, whether from a government entity or a private citizen, will not be overlooked.