# Aditya Sharma v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 656
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-29
- **Case number:** WRIT - C No. 36606 of 2019
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aditya-sharma-v-union-of-india-ors-46067
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., Sri Krishna Raj Singh Jadaun, Sri
R.P.S. Chauhan

A. Petitioner claimed for scholarship-the
claim was rejected on the fact that
petitioner was ineligible as per schemespetitioner's claim was allowed by the
court in earlier round of litigation and
remitted the matter to secretary, Ministry
of Tribal Affairs,GOI for reconsideration
the claim of petitioner in the light of
document filed by the petitioner in review
application-respondents
failed
to
reconsider the matter despite providing
complete documents again via mail by the
petitioner-consequently student has to
rush
again
to
the
court-petitioner
awarded cost of Rs. 50,000/- due to
forced litigation. (Para 1 to 30)

Awarding of costs must be treated generally as
mandatory inasmuch as the liberal attitude of
the courts in directing the parties to bear their
own costs had led the parties to file a number of
frivolous cases in the Courts or to raise frivolous
and unnecessary issues. costs must be awarded
to person who has been forced to enter into
litigation. In the instant case, the petitioner was
compelled to approach the court for the second
time. (Para 31 to 35) (E-6)
List of Cases cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,891 of 44,284. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39891 for what follows._

656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. The writ petition lacks merit and
is accordingly dismissed.

22. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
----------
(2020)09ILR A656
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

WRIT - C No. 36606 of 2019

Aditya Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
In Person

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Krishna Raj Singh Jadaun, Sri
R.P.S. Chauhan

A. Petitioner claimed for scholarship-the
claim was rejected on the fact that
petitioner was ineligible as per schemespetitioner's claim was allowed by the
court in earlier round of litigation and
remitted the matter to secretary, Ministry
of Tribal Affairs,GOI for reconsideration
the claim of petitioner in the light of
document filed by the petitioner in review
application-respondents
failed
to
reconsider the matter despite providing
complete documents again via mail by the
petitioner-consequently student has to
rush
again
to
the
court-petitioner
awarded cost of Rs. 50,000/- due to
forced litigation. (Para 1 to 30)

Awarding of costs must be treated generally as
mandatory inasmuch as the liberal attitude of
the courts in directing the parties to bear their
own costs had led the parties to file a number of
frivolous cases in the Courts or to raise frivolous
and unnecessary issues. costs must be awarded
to person who has been forced to enter into
litigation. In the instant case, the petitioner was
compelled to approach the court for the second
time. (Para 31 to 35) (E-6)
List of Cases cited: -

1. St. Of U.P. Vs Maharaja Dharmendra Prasad
Singh (1989) 2 SCC 505

2. Bachan Singh Vs U.O.I. (2008) 9 SCC 161

3. Bhubaneshwar Development Authority Vs
Adolamde Boswa (2012) 11 SCC 731

4.
Basavi
Engineering
College
Parents
Associaltion Vs St. Of Talengana (2019) 7 SCC
pg 172

5. Ramrameshwari Devi & ors. Vs Nirmala Devi
& ors. (2011) 8 SCC 249

6. A Shanmugam Vs Ariya Kshetirya Rajakula
Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai
Sangam (2012) 6 SCC 430

7. Jagdev Singh Vs St. Of U.P. & ors. (2014) 32
LCD 2216

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Aditya Sharma, in
person, learned Assistant Solicitor General
appearing for respondent-1 to 3 and the
learned counsel for respondent-4.

2. The petition was filed for quashing
of order dated 15.10.2019 passed by
respondent-2 Director Scholarship Section,
Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi, by
which the petitioner's claim for grant of
scholarship under "National Fellowship &
Scholarship for Higher Education for
Scheduled Tribe Students" (in short called
"the Scholarship Scheme") for the session
2018-19, has not been acceded to. The
petitioner has further prayed that a
9 All. Aditya Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.
657
direction may be issued to the respondents
to grant him the Scholarship for the session
2018-19.

3. The prayers made in the writ
petition are being reproduced as under:-

"a. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari to quash the
impugned order dated 15.10.19 passed by
Respondent No.2.

b. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
and directing the Ministry of Tribal Affairs
through Respondent No.2 to grant amount
of Rs.84,274/- for the session 2018-19 and
amount of Rs.39,274/- for the session
2019-20 in the favour of petitioner which
petitioner was entitled to but could not get
because of the foresaid acts of Respondent
No.3 and his assistants.

c. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
and directing the Ministry of Tribal Affairs
through Respondent No.3 and his assistant
to compensate the petitioner under Section
(1)(vii), Section (1) (ix) & Section (2)(vii)
of Prevention of Atrocities (POA) Act,
1989.

d. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
Respondent No.3 and his assistant and fine
and prosecute same under Section (1) (viii),
Section (1)(ix) and Section (2) (vii) of
Prevention of Atrocities (POA) Act,
1989for the foresaid acts of Respondent
No.3 and his assistants against the
petitioner.

e. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
and directing the Ministry of Tribal Affairs
through Respondent No.2, Respondent
No.3 and his assistants for not complying
with the Hon'ble High Court order dated
16.09.19 and passing same order which
was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court
order dated 16.09.19 and for for asking
income details from DDO,CRO (ITBP)
despite the fact that Hon'ble high court has
already observed and ruled in this context
in the favour of petitioner. In this way by
the virtue of foresaid act questioning,
scandalizing and insulting the credibility of
Hon'ble high court but also questioning the
genuineness of the affidavit that was fled
by the petitioner.

f. issue any other suitable order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem ft and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

g. To award the cost of the writ
petition in the favour of petitioner."

4. The petitioner is a student of
M.B.B.S. 4th year in the Institute of
Medical Sciences, Varanasi (in short called
"the Institute"). He belongs to Scheduled
Tribe
category.
He
applied
for
the
Scholarship Scheme under a Centrally
Section Scheme, for the year 2018-19 but
his application was rejected by order dated
12th June, 2019 of Deputy Secretary,
Ministry of Tribal Affairs. The rejection
was on the ground that as per I.T.R. for the
year 2018-19 the gross salary of the
petitioner's father Gorakh Singh was
Rs.6,02,785/-. The income criterion to be
eligible for grant of scholarship, under the
said Scheme, is that the total family income
of a candidate from all sources should not
exceed Rs.6-00 lac per annum. In view of
the guidelines, the petitioner was found to
be ineligible and his application under
Scholarship Scheme was rejected by order
dated
12th
June,
2019
passed
by
respondent-2 therein.

5. The petitioner challenged the order
dated 12.6.2019 in Writ C No.21914 of
2019(Aditya Sharma vs. Union of India and
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
two others) which was initially dismissed
on 12.7.2019. The petitioner thereafter filed
an application for review/recall of the
judgment dated 12.7.2019 being Civil
Misc. Review Application No.4 of 2019
and along with that the petitioner filed a
copy of Form-16 for the Assessment Year
2018-19 of his father and pay slips to show
that the entire income of the family of the
petitioner did not exceed Rs.6-00 lac. The
petitioner also submitted copy of the I.T.R.
for the Assessment Year 2018-19, showing
that the income of Rs.6.02,785/- also
included
reimbursement
of
travelling
expenses for discharge of official duties to
the extent of Rs.19,200/- and if the same
was excluded the income of the petitioner's
father did not exceed Rs.6 lac.

6. The petitioner's review application
No.4 of 2019 was allowed by this Court,
recalling judgment dated 12.7.2019 and
restoring the writ petition to its original
number. By a separate judgment Writ C
No.21914 of 2019 was also allowed on
16.9.2019. The order dated 12.7.2019
rejecting the claim of the petitioner for
scholarship
was
set
aside
and
the
respondent-2 therein was directed to
reconsider the claim of the petitioner for
scholarship in the light of the documents
i.e. Form-16, for the Assessment Year
2018-19
showing
gross
income
as
Rs.5,43,705/-(Annexure-7 to the review
application) and pay slip of the petitioner's
father, (Annexure-8 to Review Application)
showing gross pay as Rs.43960/- per
month, therefore, annual being Rs.5,27,
520/-.

7. The petitioner submitted a copy of
the aforesaid documents and the certified
copy of the judgment dated 16.9.2019
before the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of
Tribal Affairs/respondent-2 in Writ C No.
21914 of 2019 which was received at his
end and the same was confirmed by letter
dated
01.10.2019.
By
letter
dated
01.10.2019, the petitioner was required to
submit another list of documents and the
petitioner sent the list of documents on the
same day via mail.

8. The Director, Scholarship Division,
Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Room No.412B, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi/ present
respondent-2 passed the impugned order
datd 15.10.2019 whereby the petitioner's
claim for scholarship for session 2018-19
was again rejected on the same ground that
the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility
criteria, as the family income of the
petitioner for the Financial Year 2017-2018
exceeded Rs.6-00 lac per annum.

9. Challenging the order dated
15.10.2019 the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition for the prayers as
mentioned above.

10. Sri Aditya Sharma the petitioner in
person, has argued that his claim for scholarship
under the Scholarship Scheme has not been
accepted, only on the ground that total annual
family income of the petitioner from all the
sources, exceeded Rs.6-00 lac. The annual family
income has been assessed as Rs.6,02,785/-. The
basis of such determination is the monthly salary
details furnished by DDO, CRO (ITBP) for the
year 2017-18 and 2018-19 submitted to the
authorities by letters dated 10.10.2019 and
11.10.2019 in respect of Gorakh Singh the
petitioner's father. This was mentioned in the order
that the eligibility criterion was that the annual
family income must not exceed Rs.6-00 lacs in the
previous year i.e. 2017-18, as the petitioner had
applied in the year 2018-19.

11. Sri Aditya Sharma has submitted
that even as per the month-wise salary
9 All. Aditya Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.
659
statement prepared by DDO, CRO (ITBP)
the annual family income of the father of
the petitioner did not exceed 6-00 lac per
annum. He has submitted that the earlier
order dated 12.6.2019 by which the
petitioner's claim for scholarship was
rejected on the ground of income criteria,
was set aside by this Court and the matter
was sent back for reconsideration by the
respondent No.2 in the earlier petition, in
the light of the documents filed by the
petitioner in the review application, but in
passing
the
impugned
order
dated
15.10.2019 those documents were not taken
into consideration in spite of a specific
direction. He has submitted that the
petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria for
grant of scholarship on the criterion of
income as well.

12. Per contra, Sri R.P.S. Chauhan
learned counsel for the respondents-1 to 3
has supported the impugned order by
submitting that under "National Fellowship
and Scholarship for Higher Education for
Scheduled Tribe Students", the income
criterion is that the total income of the
family, from all sources, to be eligible for
the scholarship, should not exceed Rs.6-00
lac per annum. He has argued that for reexamination
of
the
petitioner's
case,
Ministry of Tribal Affairs, vide letter dated
1.10.2019 requested DDO,CRO(ITBP) to
furnish monthly salary statement of Gorakh
Singh for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19
and on consideration of such salary
statement, provided vide letters dated
10.10.2019 and 11.10.2019, the total
income of Gorakh Singh was Rs.6,02,785/-
for the year 2017-18 which exceeded Rs.600 lac, and as such, the petitioner was not
eligible for grant of scholarship. He has
submitted that no illegality has been
committed by the present respondent No.2
in passing the impugned order.

13. Learned counsels for respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent No.4 could not
dispute that the impugned order does not
show consideration of the documents
annexures 7 and 8 to the review application
No.4 of 2019.

14.

We
have
considered
the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the
material on record.

15. The Government of India,
Ministry of Tribal Affairs, implements
'National Fellowship and Scholarship for
Higher Education for Scheduled Tribe
Students'. This Scheme is a centrally sector
Scheme. Two erstwhile central sector
schemes i.e. ''Rajiv Gandhi National
Fellowship' and ''Top Class Education',
were merged by the Ministry of Tribal
Affairs into one scheme, mentioned above,
to provide financial assistance to Scheduled
Tribe
Students
for
pursuing
higher
education. Under the merged scheme
fellowship is provided to Scheduled Tribe
students to take up higher studies, after
completing post graduation, as, M.Phil and
Ph.D. Courses. Similarly, scholarship is
provided
to
encourage
meritorious
Scheduled Tribe students to pursue courses
at graduate/post graduate level in identified
institutions of excellence, government and
private, in professional fields, such as
management,
medicine,
engineering,
information technology, law, etc. The
guidelines
on
which
the
fellowship/scholarship is provided to the
Schedule Tribe student has been filed as
Annexure-D to the counter affidavit.

16. Paragraph-4 of the guidelines
''Annexure-D' to the counter affidavit
provides for eligibility criteria. Since, we
are
concerned
with
the
refusal
of
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
scholarship on the ground of criterion of
family income of the candidate, it is
relevant to reproduce guidelines no. 4.0 and
4.2. as under:-

"4.0 Eligibility

The Fellowship/Scholarship will
be available only to the ST candidates who
fulfill the following conditions for the
award:

4.2. Scholarship:

4.2.1. ST students who have
secured
admission
in
the
notified
institutions
according
to
the
norms
prescribed by the respective institutions
will be eligible for the scholarship under
the scheme.

4.2.2. The student will be eligible
to join only the list of institution identified
by Ministry.

4.2.3. The total family income of
the candidates to be eligible for this
scholarship from all sources should not
exceed Rs.6.0 lakh per annum.

4.2.4.The scholarship shall be
payable once the student has secured
admission and started attending the classes.

4.2.5. The scholarship awarded,
will continue till the completion of the
course, subject to satisfactory performance
of the student."

17. There is no dispute about the
eligibility criterion that the total family
income of the candidate to be eligible for
the scholarship from all sources should not
exceed Rs.6.0 lakh per annum. The dispute
is, that according to the petitioner he
fulfilled income criterion as total family
income of the petitioner did not exceed
Rs.6-00 lac per annum, whereas according
to the respondents 1 to 3 it exceeded Rs.600 lac as the income is Rs. 6,02, 785/-, and
as such, the petitioner did not fulfill the
eligibility criterion relating to income.

18. The moot point is what is the
annual family income of the petitioner from
all sources. If it exceeds Rs.6-00 lac or not.
If it exceeds Rs. 6.00 lac the petitioner is
not eligible but if it does not exceed
Rs.6.00 lac the petitioner is eligible for
grant of scholarship.

19. The question what is the annaul
family income of the petitioner is a
question of fact. Finding has been recorded
that the annual income of the petitioner's
father is Rs. 6,02,785. This Court in the
exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily,
does not interfere with the finding of fact.
However, it is open to interferance if it has
been
recorded
after
ignoring
material/evidence on record or suffers from
perversity or error of jurisdiction or such
determination has not been made by
competent authority.

20. The Power of judicial review of this
Court, as is well settled lies against the decision
making process and not against the decision
itself. If the decision making process is flouted
inter alia by violation of basic principles of
natural justice, or is ultra vires the powers of the
decision makers, or the decision makers take
into consideration the irrelevant materials or
excludes from consideration relevant materials
or admits materials behind the back of the
person to be affected or if the decision is such
that no reasonable person would have taken
such a decision, this Court steps in to correct the
error by setting aside the decision and requiring
the decision maker to take a fresh decision in
accordance with law. However, this Court in
the garb of judicial review would convert itself
into a court of appeal nor would usurp the
jurisdiction of the decision maker.

21. We may profitably refer the
following decisions on the point.
9 All. Aditya Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.
661

22. In the case of State of U.P. Vs.
Maharaja Dharmendra Prasad Singh
1989 (2) SCC 505 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under in paragraph No.
28:

"28. It not unoften happens that
what appears to be a judicial review for
breach of natural justice is, in reality, a
review for abuse of discretion. It is true
that amongst the many grounds put
forward in the show cause notice dated
19.1.1986, quite a few overlap each other
and are distinguishable from those urged
for the cancellation of the lease itself. Some
of
the
grounds
might,
perhaps,
be
somewhat premature. Some of them even if
true are so trivial that no authority could
reasonably . be expected to cancel the
permission on that basis. For instance the
ground that the permission was applied for
and granted in the name of one only of the
two lessees would be one such.

However, Judicial review under
Article 226 cannot be converted into an
appeal. Judicial review is directed, not
against the decision, but is confined to the
examination of the decision makingprocess. In Chief Constable of the North
Wales Police v. Evans (1982) 1 WLR 1155
refers to the merits-legality distinction in
judicial review. Lord Hailsham said:

The purpose of judicial review is
to ensure that the individual receives fair
treatment, and not to ensure that the
authority, after according fair treatment,
reaches on a matter which it is authorised
by law to decide for itself a conclusion
which is correct in the eyes of the court.

Lord Brightman observed:

...Judicial review, as the words
imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but
a review of the manner in which the
decision was made.

And held that it would be an
error to think:

...that the court sits in judgment
not only on the correctness of the decisionmaking process but also on the correctness
of the decision itself.

When the issue raised in judicial
review is whether a decision is vitiated by
taking
into
account
irrelevant,
or
neglecting to take into account of relevant,
factors or is so manifestly unreasonable
that no reasonable authority, entrusted
with
the
power
in
question
could
reasonably have made such a decision, the
judicial review of the decision making
process includes examination, as a matter
of law, of the relevance of the factors. In
the present case, it is, however, not
necessary to go into the merits and
relevance of the grounds having regard to
the view we propose to take on the point on
natural justice.

It would, however, be appropriate
for the statutory authority, if it proposes to
initiate action afresh, to classify the
grounds pointing out which grounds, in its
opinion, support the allegation of fraud or
misrepresentation and which, in its view
constitute subsequent violations of the
terms and conditions of the grant. The
grounds must be specific so as to afford the
Lessees an effective opportunity of showing
cause."

23. In the case of Bachan Singh Vs.
Union of India 2008 (9) SCC 161 it was
reiterated that the judicial review is
directed against the decision making
process and not the decision itself. High
Court cannot act as a court of appeal in
proceeding under Article 226. Judicial
review is not an appeal but a review of the
manner in which the decision is made. The
Court sits in judgment only on the
correctness of the decision making process
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and not on the correctness of the decision
itself. Paragraph No. 15 of Bachan Singh
case (supra) is being reproduced as under:

"15. Having examined the above
said order of the learned Single Judge, we
find that the findings and reasonings
recorded therein are not based upon
proper assessment of the facts of the case
and it was not necessary for the learned
Single Judge to have minutely examined the
record of the GCM as if he was sitting in
appeal. We find that on merits, the learned
Single Judge has not clearly and plainly
said that there was no case against the
appellant to hold him guilty of the offence
charged. It is well-known and well-settled
proposition of law that in proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution the
High Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal
over the findings recorded by the GCM.
Judicial Review under Article 226 of the
Constitution is not directed against the
decision but is confined to the decisionmaking process. Judicial review is not an
appeal but a review of the manner in which
the decision is made. The court sits in
judgment only on the correctness of the
decision making process and not on the
correctness of the decision itself. Thus,
examining the case of the appellant from
all angles we are satisfied that there was
no irregularity or illegality in the GCM
which was fairly and properly conducted
by most qualified members holding very
high ranks in Army hierarchy."

24. In the case of Bhubaneshwar
Development Authority Vs. Adolamde
Boswa; (2012) 11 SCC 731, the same
principle was reiterated that the Court
concerns itself to the question of legality
and is concerned only with whether the
decision making authority exceeded its
powers, committed an error of law,
committed a breach of rules, reached an
unreasonable decision or abused its powers.
Paragraph 18 of the case of Bhubaneshwar
Development Authority (supra) is being
reproduced as under:

"18. We are of the view that the
High Court was not justified in sitting in
appeal over the decision taken by the
statutory authority under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It is trite law that the
power of judicial review under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is not directed
against the decision but is confined to the
decision making process. The judicial
review is not an appeal from a decision, but
a review of the manner in which the
decision is made and the Court sits in
judgment only on the correctness of the
decision making process and not on the
correctness of the decision itself. The Court
confines itself to the question of legality
and is concerned only with, whether the
decision making authority exceeded its
power, committed an error of law,
committed a breach of the rules of natural
justice, reached an unreasonable decision
or abused its powers."

25.

In
the
case
of
Basavi
Engineering College Parents Association
Vs. State of Talengana reported in 2019
(7) SCC page 172 the Hon'ble Supreme
court has again held as under in paragraph
Nos 17 and 18:

"17. Judicial review, as is well
known, lies against the decision-making
process and not the merits of the decision
itself. If the decision-making process is
flawed inter alia by violation of the basic
principles of natural justice, is ultra-vires
the powers of the decision maker, takes into
consideration
irrelevant
materials
or
excludes
relevant
materials,
admits
9 All. Aditya Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.
663
materials behind the back of the person to
be affected or is such that no reasonable
person would have taken such a decision in
the circumstances, the court may step in to
correct the error by setting aside such
decision and requiring the decision maker
to take a fresh decision in accordance with
the law. The court, in the garb of judicial
review, cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the
decision maker and make the decision
itself. Neither can it act as an appellate
authority of the TFARC. In Fertilizer
Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri
v.
Union
of
India,
MANU/SC/0010/1980MANU/SC/0010/198
0 : (1981) 1 SCC 568, it was observed:

35. ...We certainly agree that
judicial
interference
with
the
administration cannot be meticulous in our
Montesquieu system of separation of
powers. The court cannot usurp or
abdicate, and the parameters of judicial
review must be clearly defined and never
exceeded.
If
the
directorate
of
a
government company has acted fairly, even
if it has faltered in its wisdom, the court
cannot, as a super auditor, take the Board
of Directors to task. This function is limited
to testing whether the administrative action
has been fair and free from the taint of
unreasonableness and has substantially
complied with the norms of procedure set
for it by Rules of public administration.

18. Judicial restraint in exercise
of Judicial review was considered in the
State of (NCT) of Delhi v. Sanjeev,
MANU/SC/0257/2005MANU/SC/0257/200
5 : (2005) 5 SCC 181 as follows:

16.
...One
can
conveniently
classify under three heads the grounds on
which administrative action is subject to
control by judicial review. The first ground
is "illegality", the second "irrationality",
and the third "procedural impropriety".
These principles were highlighted by Lord
Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions
v. Minister for the Civil Service (commonly
known as CCSU case). If the power has
been exercised on a non-consideration or
non-application of mind to relevant factors,
the exercise of power will be regarded as
manifestly erroneous. If a power (whether
legislative or administrative) is exercised
on the basis of facts which do not exist and
which
are
patently
erroneous,
such
exercise of power will stand vitiated."

26. In the present case, we find that in
the earlier round of litigation in Writ C No.
21914 of 2019 in which the order dated
12.6.2019 rejecting the petitioner's claim
for scholar ship was challenged, this Court
by judgment dated 16.9.2019 allowed the
writ petition, quashed the order dated
12.6.2019 and remitted the matter to the
Respondent No.2 therein, i.e. the Deputy
Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs
(Scholarship Sections), Government of
India, to reconsider the claim of petitioner
for scholarship in the light of the
documents filed before this Court in review
application No.4 of 2019. Those documents
were Form-16 for the Assessment Year
2018-19
(Annexure-7
to
the
review
application) and pay slip of the petitioner's
father (Annexure No. 8 to the review
application).

27. The judgment of this Court dated
16.9.2019 in Writ C No. 21914 of 2019 is
being reproduced as under:

"1. The writ petition has been
restored vide order or date passed on
Review Application, as requested and
agreed by the parties, we proceed to hear
and decide this case finally at this stage.

2. Heard Sri Aditya Sharma,
Petitioner in person, and Sri Manav
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Charausia
and
Sri
K.R.S.
Jadaun,
Advocates, for respondents.

3. It is stated that petitioner has
received documents for the assessment year
2018-19 showing gross total income of Rs.
5,43,705/- and copy thereof has been filed
as Annexure-7 to the Review Application
which is a copy of Form-16 for Assessment
Year 2018-19 of Gorakh Singh, father of
petitioner. It is pointed out that income
certificate, wherein the income of Rs.
6,02,785/- was shown, also included
reimbursement of traveling expenses for
discharge of official duties to the extent of
Rs. 19,200/- and if the same is excluded,
the income will be less than Rupees six
lacs. Pay slip of petitioner's father has also
been filed as Annexure-8 to Review
Application showing gross pay as Rs.
43,960/- and annual income, therefore,
comes to Rs. 5,27,520/-.

4. In our view, the respondentcompetent authority need to re-examine the
claim of petitioner for scholarship in the
light of above documents.

5. In view thereof, this writ
petition
is
allowed.
Order
dated
12.06.2019, Annexure-6 to the writ petition,
rejecting claim of petitioner for scholarship
only on the ground that income of
petitioner's father is more than Rs.
6,00,000/- is hereby set aside.

6. Respondent-2 is directed to reconsider the claim of petitioner for
scholarship
in
the
light
of
above
documents, copies whereof shall also be
submitted by petitioner along with certified
copy of this order afresh to respondent-2
within ten days and thereafter respondent-2
shall pass a fresh order, as directed above,
within one month."

28. The impugned order dated
15.10.2019 states in paragraph 2 that the
petitioner was requested by letter No.
12025/08/2019-SCH dated 30.9.2019 to
furnish the document/information which
included
copy
of
the
Form-16
for
Assessment Year 2018-19 of Gorakh
Singh, father of the petitioner (Annexure
No.7 to the review application) and copy of
the pay slip of the petitioner's father
(Annexure-8 to the review application).
The petitioner has stated in paragraph No. 3
of the writ petition that he had already
submitted
requisite
documents
in
compliance of the order of this Court dated
16.9.2019
to
the
Deputy
Secretary,
(Scholarship), Ministry of Tribal Affairs
(Scholarship Division). The petitioner in
paragraph No.4 of the petition has stated
that on 1.10.2019 a letter from Respondent
No.3 i.e. Deputy Director Scholarship
Division was received by the petitioner via
mail (Annexure No.4) asking the petitioner
to supply another list of documents as
mentioned in that letter dated 30.9.2019
received on mail on 1.10.2019 in Paragraph
No.5. The petitioner has further submitted
that on the same day within two hours the
petitioner sent all the documents that were
asked again via mail (Annexure No.5). In
reply to the aforesaid averments of the
petitioner in paragraph Nos. 3,4 and 5 of
the writ petition, the Respondent Nos. 1,2
and 3 in their counter affidavit have stated
that the petitioner had not submitted the
complete documents via letter dated
23.9.2019 to the respondent as ordered by
the Hon'ble High Court and, therefore, a
letter dated 30.9.2019 was sent to the
petitioner requesting him to submit the
complete document. However, there is no
denial of the petitioner's averments that in
compliance of the letter dated 30.9.2019
received to the petitioner on 1.10.2019 via
mail all the required documents were sent
within two hours on the same day via mail.
The impugned order also does not state that
the petitioner did not submit the documents
9 All. Aditya Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.
665
required by letter dated 30.9.2019. Besides,
the petitioner's averments are supported by
Annexure-5 which has not been disputed in
the counter affidavit. We have no reason to
disbelieve
the
petitioner's
averment
substantiated by annexures.

29. We are of the considered view that in
passing the impugned order dated 15.10. 2019
decision making process has been faulted. The
relevant material as directed by this court was
not taken into consideration and the matter has
also not been considered by the Deputy
Secretary, who was directed to reconsider the
matter vide judgement dated 16.09.2019. The
ultimate decision, as such cannot be sustained.
The impugned order dated 15.10.2019 deserves
to be quashed with direction to respondent no.1
that the petitioner's case for grant of scholarship
be considered afresh in accordance with law
and in the light of the observations and the
directions contained in this judgement, by
Deputy
Secretary,
Scholarship
Division
Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi.

30. We are further of the considered
view that the petitioner's claim for grant of
scholarship, as per the directions of this
Court vide judgment dated 6.9.2019
passed, in Writ C No. 21914 of 2019 has
not been considered. It has also not been
considered by the authority who was
directed to consider. Consequently, the
petitioner who belongs to the Scheduled
Tribe and is pursuing studies in the 4th year
of MBBS, has to rush again to this Court.
He has been imposed a forced litigation.

31. Chapter 21 Rule 11 of the
Allahabad
High
Court
Rules
1952
prescribed the award of cost which reads as
under:

"19. Chapter XXI, Rule 11 of the
Allahabad
High
Court
Rules,
1952
prescribes the award of costs, which reads
as under:-

" 11. Costs.--- In disposing of an
application under this Chapter the Court
may make such order as to costs as it may
consider just.

1. Costs--Imposition of.-- it is
apparent that non-payment of cost is an
exemption for which special reasons have
to be given by the Court. The cost imposed
should be in accordance with rules and if
the
proceedings
are
unnecessarily
protracted or adjournments have been
sought it is upon the discretion of the Judge
to impose exemplary cost taking also into
account the circumstances etc. for the
purpose of adjournment.

2. Awarding of Costs.--Apex
Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association,
Tamil Nadu v. union of India, AIR 2005 SC
3353, has held that "so far as awarding of
costs at the time of judgment is concerned,
awarding of costs must be treated generally
as mandatory inasmuch as the liberal
attitude of the Courts in directing the
parties to bear their own costs had led the
parties to file a number of frivolous cases
in the Courts or to raise frivolous and
unnecessary issues. Costs should invariably
follow
the
event.
Costs
must
be
appropriately apportioned. Special reasons
must be assigned if costs are not being
awarded.
Costs
should
be
assessed
according to the rule in force."

32. Apart from the aforesaid statutory
provision the Supreme Court in the case
reported in Ramrameshwari Devi and
others vs. Nirmala Devi and others
(2011)8SCC 249 has held that the
compensation must be awarded to persons
who have been forced to enter into
litigation. Paragraph Nos. 31, 32, 33 and 43
of the case of Ramrameshwari Devi
(supra) are being reproduced as under:
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"31.Dr. Arun Mohan, learned
amicus curiae, has written an extremely
useful,
informative
and
unusual
bookJustice, Courts and Delays. This book
also deals with the main causes of delay in
the administration of justice. He has also
suggested
some
effective
remedial
measures. We would briefly deal with the
aspect of delay in disposal of civil cases
and
some
remedial
measures
and
suggestions to improve the situation.
According to our considered view, if these
suggestions are implemented in proper
perspective,
then
the
present
justice
delivery system of civil litigation would
certainly improve to a great extent.

32. According to the learned
author, 90% of our court time and
resources are consumed in attending to
uncalled for litigation, which is created
only because our current procedures and
practices hold out an incentive for the
wrongdoer. Those involved receive less
than full justice and there are many more in
the country, in fact, a greater number than
those involved who suffer injustice because
they have little access to justice, in fact,
lack of awareness and confidence in the
justice system.

33. According to Dr. Mohan, in
our legal system, uncalled for litigation gets
encouragement because our courts do not
impose realistic costs. The parties raise
unwarranted claims and defences and also
adopt obstructionist and delaying tactics
because the courts do not impose actual or
realistic costs. Ordinarily, the successful
party usually remains uncompensated in
our courts and that operates as the main
motivating
factor
for
unscrupulous
litigants. Unless the courts, by appropriate
orders or directions remove the cause for
motivation or the incentives, uncalled for
litigation will continue to accrue, and there
will be expansion and obstruction of the
litigation. Court time and resources will be
consumed and justice will be both delayed
and denied.

43.We have carefully examined
the written submissions of the learned
amicus curiae and the learned counsel for
the parties. We are clearly of the view that
unless we ensure that wrongdoers are
denied profit or undue benefit from the
frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to
control
frivolous
and
uncalled
for
litigations. In order to curb uncalled for and
frivolous litigation, the courts have to
ensure that there is no incentive or motive
for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of
common experience that court's otherwise
scarce and valuable time is consumed or
more appropriately, wasted in a large
number of uncalled for cases."

33.
Again
in
the
case
of
A
Shanmugam
v.
Ariya
Kshetirya
Rajakula
Vamsathu
Madalaya
Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam report
in 2012 (6) SCC 430 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has reiterated the same principle.

34. In the case of Jagdev Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and others [2014 (32) LCD
2216] (DB) this Court held that the
imposition of cost is must and the courts
can award compensatory cost to the
litigants who have approached to the court
because of commission and omission of the
State Government and as in the said case
the petitioner therein was compelled to
approach this Court for the second time,
cost was imposed. It is relevant to
reproduce paragraph Nos. 22 and 23 of the
said judgment as under:-

"23. In view of above and
keeping in view the factual matrix on
record, it appears that the petitioner has
been compelled to approach this Court for
the second time in spite of the fact that
9 All. Aditya Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.
667
while passing the impugned order, the
government itself recorded a finding that the
petitioner is in possession of the infrastructure
regarding the agricultural industry which is
running over the land in dispute which,
according to the petitioner's counsel, is for
more than 48 years. Once, the government
itself found that no actual possession has been
delivered in the manner provided by the Apex
Court in the catena of judgments ((supra)),
then it was not open for the government to
reject the application and adjudicate the
controversy in an indecisive manner with
contradictory finding. It is a fit case where
exemplary cost should be awarded.

24. The writ petition deserves to
be and is hereby allowed.

A writ in the nature of certiorari
is issued quashing the impugned order
dated 3.6.2013, contained in Annexure No.
1 to the writ petition with all consequential
benefits. A further writ in the nature of
mandamus is issued commanding the State
Government to reconsider the petitioner's
case keeping in view the observation made
in
the
body
of
present
judgment,
expeditiously, say within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of the present judgment.

Cost is quantified to Rs. 1 lac, out
of which the petitioner shall be entitled to
Rs. 50,000/- and the remaining Rs. 50,000/-
shall be remitted to the Mediation &
Conciliation
Centre,
High
Court,
Allahabad. Let the cost be deposited within
two months from today. In case the cost is
not deposited within the time stipulated
above, it shall be recovered as arrears of
land revenue by the Collector, Allahabad.

Registry to take follow-up action.

The writ petition is allowed
accordingly with cost as above."

35. We, therefore quash the impugned
order dated 15.10.2019 and direct the
respondent No.1, The Union of India
through Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi, that the petitioner's
case for grant of scholarship be considered
afresh
by
the
Deputy
Secretary,
Scholarship Division Ministry of Tribal
Affairs New Delhi in accordance with law
after
considering
the
documents
i.e.
annexure No. 7 and 8 to the Review
Application No. 4 of 2019 as well. The
petitioner's contention that even as per the
letter
of
DDO, CRO
(ITBP) dated
10.10.2019 and 11.10.2019 the annual
family income of the petitioner does not
exceed rupees 6 lacs, shall also be
considered by the said authority.

36.