Bombay High Court orders litigant to pay ₹25k costs to Kalamba prison for improving jail library

The Bombay High Court last week imposed costs of ₹25,000 on a litigant and directed the same to be deposited with the prison at Kalamba in Kolhapur to purchase books for the its library [Sushama Arun Patil vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.].A Bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Justice GA Sanap had earlier this month, while hearing a transfer plea by the 2018 Bhima Koregaon violence accused Gautam Navlakha, noted the pitiable plight of the prison library in the Taloja Central Prison. It had remarked that the number of books in the library was grossly insufficient.“These are not a lot. Libraries are important for jail inmates. Not just fiction books, but spiritual books also. 2800 books is nothing. Even a secondary school will have more books,” Justice Shukre had said upon being informed by the state that the library contained 2850 books even though the prison housed 3000 inmates..It was this finding of the Court that prompted it to moot the possibility of utilising the costs imposed on litigants for augmenting prison libraries.The same Bench, after having found one of the present respondents guilty of manipulating and abusing the process of law, directed him to deposit the costs to a prison to buy books for its library. "Respondent No.6 shall pay cost of ₹25,000 to prison at Kalamba, Kolhapur for the purpose of purchasing books for jail library," the order said.The petition in the present case was filed by a Zilla Parishad school teacher after her transfer to a school in Kolhapur from Gadhinglaj in 2019 was reversed following the directions of the Minister of Rural Development. The Minister issued the order on January 15, 2021, directing that the transfer of some employees should be cancelled and they should be re-posted to their earlier places. The directions were purportedly issued after the respondent, now found guilty by the High Court, wrote to the Minister alleging that the affairs of the Kolhapur Zilla Parishad were being run and managed in a highly arbitrary manner.Acting on these directions, the Chief Executive Officer of the Kolhapur Zilla Parishad on September 29, 2021, issued transfer orders to multiple employees including the present petitioner and the respondent later found guilty of abusing the law.The petitioner argued that the order was illegal and was passed without jurisdiction as the Minister had no power of transfer under any statute or government decision.The Bench pointed out that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner."The impugned order is illegal for the reason that it has not been issued after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Neither the Hon’ble Minister nor the Respondent No.3 thought it fit to hear the Petitioner before they re-transferred the Petitioner to Gadhinglaj to suit the convenience of the Respondent No.6," it noted.Counsel for the respondent argued that there was no work-load available for the petitioner to teach subjects at Kolhapur and therefore, she could not be directed to be transferred back there. The submission was found to be factually incorrect by the Court. It cited the reply of the Education Officer at the Zilla Parishad there . The Court then condemned the conduct of the respondent-teacher who the Court noted had earlier filed a petition in 2019 which he withdrew in 2021, after he realised he would not be getting any relief. During the pendency of that petition, he had filed a complaint with the minister alleging that the affairs of Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur were being run and managed in highly arbitrary manner and that the transfers of teachers were made illegally.In this complaint, the respondent did not mention anything about the filing of 2019 petition, by him questioning the legality or otherwise of his transfer order. Some way or the other the respondent succeeded in getting his complaint allowed by the minister when the latter issued a direction on 15th January 15, 2021 cancelling the transfers of teachers made in the year 2019 and giving a further direction that those teachers be posted after due counseling. It might have been this direction by the minister which prompted the respondent to withdraw his petition, the Court noted."In this complaint, the Respondent No.6 did not mention anything about filing of Writ Petition No.9881/2019, by him questioning the legality or otherwise of his transfer order. Some way or the other the Respondent No.6 succeeded in getting his complaint allowed by the Hon’ble Minister when the latter issued a direction on 15th January 2021 cancelling the transfers of teachers made in the year 2019 and giving a further direction that those teachers be posted after due counseling," the Court observed.But the Court was not informed of the same and this amounted to manipulation of the process of law, the Bench said."Thus, Respondent No.6 suppressed material facts from this Court and also from the Hon’ble Minister and thereby indulged in manipulating the process of law to suit his convenience," the judgment stated.After all that, the respondent filed yet another petition before the High Court in 2021 seeking implementation of the directions issued by the minister on January 15 2021.That second petition was disposed of a day after the transfer order of September 29 was passed by the Zilla Parishad and brought to the notice of the Court. Even in this matter, the Court said, the respondent failed to bring to the notice of the Court the manipulations done by him before September 30, 2021.Thus, it was of the view that present respondent had done everything that was possible for him to manipulate and abuse the process of law and therefore, it is necessary to impose suitable costs on him. [Read Judgment]