The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recalled its earlier direction imposing a cost of ₹5,000 on the Superintendent of Police, Mewat, after finding that an inadvertent error in recording the facts had led to the penalty.
Justice Sumeet Goel passed the order in Vijay Sharma v. State of Haryana, observing that a litigant should not suffer because of an error committed by the Court.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from an earlier order dated August 18, 2026, in which the State counsel was given time to file a reply. The Court had directed that the reply be filed with an advance copy to the petitioner's counsel before the next hearing. It was also ordered that failure to comply would result in a ₹5,000 cost being imposed on the concerned Superintendent of Police.
When the matter came up on September 7, 2026, the order recorded that the reply had not been filed and imposed the ₹5,000 cost on the SP, Mewat. The amount was directed to be deducted from his salary and deposited with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority.
The Court later noticed that the factual position had not been correctly recorded in the September 7 order.
Court's Observation
The High Court referred to the legal principle “Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit”, meaning that an act or mistake of the Court should not prejudice a litigant.
"there is no higher principle for the guidance of the Courts than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant and it is bounden duty of the Courts to see if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court then he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake," the Court observed.
The Court also relied on Supreme Court decisions including Jang Singh v. Brij Lal, Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb, Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Limited and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni.
It noted that courts have the power to recall an order where a mistake by the Court has caused prejudice to a party, subject to the principles governing such recall.
Decision
The High Court found that the State had in fact sought to place its reply on record on September 7, 2026. Therefore, the imposition of costs on the SP, Mewat, had resulted from an inadvertent error in recording the relevant facts.
Accordingly, Justice Sumeet Goel recalled the direction imposing ₹5,000 costs on the Superintendent of Police, Mewat, along with the consequential direction for deduction of the amount from his salary.
The Court clarified that the fresh order would form part of the record and be read in continuation of the September 7 order.
The IOIN was accordingly disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Vijay Sharma vs. State of Haryana
Case Number: CRM-M-44829-2026
Judge: Justice Sumeet Goel
Decision Date: September 10, 2026
-300x169.webp)
