Petitioner is a Project Director, Kohat Development Authority, Kohat who was defendant in the suit before the trial Court.
2. Respondent No,1 Mst. Farkhanda Jabeen was allotted Plot No,60 in Sector 2-B, K.D.A. Scheme Kohat, vide order, No,1094 dated 27-9-1995 in open auction. She deposited the first instalment along with taxes but could not deposit the remaining two instalments within the stipulated period, thus, applied for extension of time to deposit the arrears. Such request was allowed by the petitioner himself and on 14-1-1996, the arrears along with the late fee and surcharge were deposited in United Bank Cantt. Branch, Kohat. Despite of such compliance with the order of the petitioner, the plot was cancelled from her. Respondent No, 1/plaintiff could not succeed to persuade the petitioner to recall the cancellation order, thus, due to negative and perverse attitude of the petitioner, she was paddled up for trial by instituting a declaratory suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kohat.
3. Again good sense could not prevail upon the petitioner as he opted for collision course, contested the suit, trial was held which ended in a decree against him.
4. Making it a matter of prestige or to say for ulterior consideration, the petitioner did not abandon the unholy chase and filed appeal before the District Judge, Kohat and that too without getting legal opinion from competent authority. The appeal met utter failure and was dismissed on 27-4- 2004 by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Kohat.
5. Displaying again the same .Unreasonable conduct and behaviour riddled by mala fide and an unsavoury one, the petitioner at the cost of Government Exchequer has filed this petition without making a little stop/pause to think rationally about this fruitless litigation with a citizen.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the arrears were deposited not within the extended period allowed by the petitioner, therefore, respondent/plaintiff was having no case and the Courts below have erred in allowing the decree.
6. It has been judicially noticed that Government functionaries frequently involve the Government or its attached departments and other organizations in unnecessary and frivolous litigations with the citizens. The shelves of this Court and those of the subordinate Courts could no more bear the burden/weight of case files of this nature.
' True that whenever vital interest of the State/Government is involved in a case, the Incharge of the department shall come up with a firm stand to defend and prosecute in securing interest of the Government and the State at all costs but unfortunately the trend is otherwise and what we could see is the reverse side of the matter. Cases in which vital interest of the State and Government is involved are ordinarily conducted poorly and the looser is the Government/the State and. Not the citizen. To the contrary, on the very petty matters citizens are pushed to a trouble corner with unreasonable approach to a matter in issue, thus, avoidable and unnecessary litigations are created for the Government/State and the officer responsible for the same, despite, of loosing it in the Courts and fail to achieve the desired results, still go scott free. None has been questioned or made answerable so far in this regard. It is a high time that due process of accountability is adopted and applied to the subject by the authority at the helm of the affairs of the State to curb this undesirable practice which must diminish the magnitude of expenses incurred by the State on frivolous litigation. What should be the proper and effective methodology to check this practice and chanelize the entire process in an effective and comprehensive manner, I would avoid to comment on or to lay down any policy which is the duty and prerogative of the authority concerned, however, "alternative dispute resolution" commonly called "ADR" procedure has received universal recognition because it has worked as much beneficial factor in reducing the magnitude/volume of pending cases in many countries.
7. The present case is a classic example of frivolous litigation with a citizen by a State functionary at the cost of State Exchequer. The result must have been well-known to the petitioner from its inception and the fate of this petition as well but despite that he has opted to go on for contest in quick succession but for his pleasure at the cost of Government treasury.
' Once the petitioner or his predecessor-in-office extended the time for the deposit of arrears/instalments imposing late fee and surcharge and when the said amount was received in the relevant account, there was left no justification muchless plausible with anyone to refuse the restoration of allotment in the name of the respondent/ plaintiff, moreso when the impugned order cancelling the allotment in favour of respondent No,1 has been passed without any show-cause notice to her, on such ground alone the said order was liable to be set at naught.
For what has been discussed above, this petition is dismissed in limine with a cost of Rs,5,000. The cost imposed and all the expenses incurred on the entire litigation shall be recovered from the salary of the Project Director concerned K.D.A., Kohat. Copy .Of this judgment shall be sent for compliance to the Chief Secretary, Government of N.-W.F.P., Peshawar who is expected to pay urgent attention to the observations made above and to comply with the same. District Account Officer, Kohat be also directed to recover the expenses of the litigation incurred on the present case from the salary of the Project Directors K.D.A. Involved in this case. The Registrar shall prepare a statement about the expenses incurred on this case by collecting facts and figures from all concerned and shall inform the District Accounts Officer, Kohat to that effect. He shall further keep a contact with the quarters concerned to see that the remarks and observations made above are complied with in letter and spirit. The Chief Secretary, Government of N.-W.F.P. Shall issue a direction to all the Administrative Secretaries and. Heads of attached departments to read the Provincial Secretariat Manual containing instructions avoiding of unnecessary litigation with the citizens and shall act upon it in future. Early steps may be taken to achieve the desired results. This would on one hand minimize the back log crisis for the Courts and on the other hand would reduce the State expenses incurred on litigations which has assumed monster status. The five thousand costs imposed and other expenses when recovered shall go to the relevant head/Government account because respondent is not before the Court.