State Of Chhattisgarh v. Brijraja Ram Yadav

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 108 of 2018 • Kantikumar Yadav S/o Bhurva, Aged about 53 years, R/o Sukul Para, Tahsil Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ------Respondent AND Writ Appeal No. 109 of 2018

4. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, District- JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh. • Hridaya Narain Yadav S/o Nammu Prasad Aged about 50 years, R/o Sukul Para, Tahsil Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ----Respondent

AND Writ Appeal No. 113 of 2018 • Asharam Aditya S/o Fhiruram Aditya, Aged about 58 years R/o Sukul Para, Tahsil Pamgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ------Respondent AND Writ Appeal No. 121 of 2018 • Sitaram Yadav S/o Chhedu Ram Yadav, Aged about 73 years R/o Sukul Para, Tahsil Pamgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ------Respondent AND

Writ Appeal No. 124 of 2018 • Brijraja Ram Yadav S/o Late Shri Bisahu Ram Yadav Aged about 97 years R/o Sukul Para, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Appellant-State :

Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge Order On Board Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice 28.02.2018

1. The issue arising for decision in these writ appeals is as to whether the learned Single Judge was unjustified in imposing an order of costs as against the State, though the writ petitions were dismissed.

2. Hearing the learned Additional Advocate General, we see that the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case was considered by the learned Single Judge. As against the same common judgment Writ Appeals No. 107/2018 and 118/2018 filed by the State have already been dismissed holding that the

imposition of costs is essentially a discretionary matter and such discretion need not necessarily depend upon the success of the litigation in favour of either of the party. In the case in hand, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The order of costs was passed in favour of the petitioner. It cannot be said that there was no room to pass such an order of costs. This issue is also covered by the judgment referred to in above dated 26.02.2018 in Writ Appeals No. 107/2018 and 118/2018. We follow that judgment.

3. In the result, these writ appeals are dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Chief Justice Judge Kishore