The Bombay High Court recently weighed in on the "simplicity of importance" of the central government, saying that while it was aware of cases pending in the courts, the government was by far the biggest litigant and the one that sought the stay most often.
A bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata, while hearing a petition filed by one Ramkali Gupta in 2016 in property related matters on October 5, said that the Union government's repeated allegations of pending cases are not new. obstacles allegedly caused by the courts.
In its judgement, the court said it was shocked to note that Gupta's petition has been pending for seven years and since June this year, the appeal has been adjourned on the request of the Union government to allow the additional Attorney General to appear. .
"We are equally aware and must say that we are no strangers to the Union Government's own repeated allegations of pendency of cases, increasing delays, repeated delays and obstructions in our courts allegedly created by the government. 'Ease of doing business, '" the bench said.

"All of these arguments conveniently ignore the fact that the government is by far the largest litigant and the one that seeks the most frequent stays, often unnecessarily," the court said, citing the argument as an example. "The performance of the Union Government in this matter leaves nothing to be desired. It leaves everything to be desired," he said.
The court said it does not expect the Additional Solicitor General to appear in every case involving the Union of India.

"Of course, it is not unreasonable to assume that his office has fully qualified lawyers who can lighten his burden and assist him in the performance of his duties. We see no reason why no one else is prepared to handle this matter," the order said. . The court said that the issue raised in the petition was narrow and deserved to be heard and finally decided itself at the admission stage.
"Therefore, we cannot fully appreciate and express our deep dissatisfaction with the repeated adjournment requests," the court said.
The court adjourned the action for the last time, saying it did so only out of courtesy to the additional counsel.