Underlining that the Government is not on the same footing as an individual in litigations, the Supreme Court has strongly chided the Maharashtra Government for remaining silent and not participating “responsibly” in the proceedings either in the High Court or the apex court.Expressing its unhappiness and grave concern at the way the state Government conducted itself, a Bench of Justices S H Kapadia and B Sudershan Reddy recently said it reflected “highly unsatisfactory state of affairs”. “It is the constitutional obligation and duty of the state to place true and relevant facts by filing proper affidavits enabling the court to discharge its constitutional duties,” the court said, reiterating the state was bound to produce complete records relating to the case once a petition was admitted by the court.Hearing an appeal filed by the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) on a dispute concerning the title of large acres of land in Mumbai, the court lamented the state Government’s tendency to utilise lower-level officers to make oral statements rather than filing affidavits through senior-level officials. “This malady requires immediate remedy,” the Bench cautioned.While setting aside the earlier order and remitting the matter to the HC, the Bench hoped that the state would conduct itself in a “responsible manner and assist the HC by filing proper affidavit and documents that may be available with it”. It also hoped that legal advisors of the Government would display greater competence and attention in drafting affidavits.“Governments do not enjoy the same amount of discretion as that of a private party even in the matter of conduct of litigation. The Governments do not enjoy any unlimited discretion in this regard. No one need remind the state that they represent the collective will of society,” the Bench noted.The SC observed that the state remained “silent spectators” and, in an approach stranger than fiction, it did not file its reply in the HC. Even in the apex court, the state did not participate in the proceedings despite filing an affidavit.The Bench told the HC to decide for itself even in the absence of proper affidavits from the state and its instrumentalities as to whether any case at all is made out requiring its interference on the basis of the material made available on record under Article 226 of the Constitution. This provision empowers HC to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and issue writs or directions.
