<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday imposed costs of 1 lakh on a petitioner for filing an appeal to challenge an order of the Allahabad High Court that adjourned his plea related to promotions after issuing a notice.</p><p>Observing that such petitions waste the court's time and increases pendency, a three-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Rajesh Bindal and Sandeep Mehta expressed displeasure over the practice of filing appeals against high court orders issuing notices or granting adjournments.</p><p>"We have come across several such Special Leave Petitions filed merely against orders issuing notice, granting adjournment or refusing interim protection. In reference to our earlier order, Advocate on Records are not postmen but also officers of the court and should not merely sign off. They owe a greater responsibility," the bench said.</p>.Illegal allotment of seat: High Court imposes Rs 1 lakh cost on Karnataka Examinations Authority .<p>"Such petitions are nothing but an abuse of the process of law and waste the precious time of the court and add to pendency," it added</p><p>Refusing to allow the petitioner to withdraw the plea, the court said, "In order to send a message to the Advocate on Records and counsels appearing in such matters, we are inclined to dismiss the petition with a token cost of Rs 1 lakh."</p><p>The top court directed that the cost be deposited to the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association from Monday.</p><p>In this case, the petitioner had approached the high court with a plea to set aside an order in which his case for promotion was rejected.</p><p>The high court on January 18, 2024, issued a notice noting that the "matter requires consideration" and listed it for the week commencing on April 8.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday imposed costs of 1 lakh on a petitioner for filing an appeal to challenge an order of the Allahabad High Court that adjourned his plea related to promotions after issuing a notice.</p><p>Observing that such petitions waste the court's time and increases pendency, a three-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Rajesh Bindal and Sandeep Mehta expressed displeasure over the practice of filing appeals against high court orders issuing notices or granting adjournments.</p><p>"We have come across several such Special Leave Petitions filed merely against orders issuing notice, granting adjournment or refusing interim protection. In reference to our earlier order, Advocate on Records are not postmen but also officers of the court and should not merely sign off. They owe a greater responsibility," the bench said.</p>.Illegal allotment of seat: High Court imposes Rs 1 lakh cost on Karnataka Examinations Authority .<p>"Such petitions are nothing but an abuse of the process of law and waste the precious time of the court and add to pendency," it added</p><p>Refusing to allow the petitioner to withdraw the plea, the court said, "In order to send a message to the Advocate on Records and counsels appearing in such matters, we are inclined to dismiss the petition with a token cost of Rs 1 lakh."</p><p>The top court directed that the cost be deposited to the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association from Monday.</p><p>In this case, the petitioner had approached the high court with a plea to set aside an order in which his case for promotion was rejected.</p><p>The high court on January 18, 2024, issued a notice noting that the "matter requires consideration" and listed it for the week commencing on April 8.</p>