JUDGMENT : Kuldip Singh, J. 1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed in public interest by an Advocate practising in this Court and the petitioner has asked for directions for providing separate schools with vocational training hostels for children of prostitutes. Initially petitioner's application was confined to Delhi area but later noticing the nature of reliefs sought, its impact on society and the fact that the problem is common to several parts of India. the States and Union Territories were impleaded and notice was ordered to them. 2. This Court appointed a Committee with lawyers and social activists to have an in depth examination of the matter and furnish a scheme to the Court by way of a report. The report has already been received and copy thereof has been circulated. 3. On 22nd February, 1991, we made a direction to the States to file their respective affidavits within four weeks. When the matter came up on 10th April, 1991, it transpired that no State excepting Orissa had filed its affidavit. Even the Delhi Administration which was the main party in the proceeding from the beginning was not represented. Similarly several of the Standing Counsel for the States were absent. This Court, therefore, observed:- "It is difficult for us to conceive of a situation where there would be such non-cooperation. We have on several occasions reprimanded the Counsel appearing for the States in not supporting the cause of their clients but the situation does not improve. The matter is adjourned to 3rd May 1991 with a direction to the Union of India and each of the States excepting the State of Orissa to specifically pin-point the objection to the several recommendations of the Committee in its report and in case any other alternate suggestion is to be made the same should be indicated. If the response is not made available by 3rd May 1991, when the matter is called out, those States shall be deemed to be ex-parte for purposes of this case." On 3rd May 1991, when the matter was called we found that these was not very much improvement in the situation notwithstanding the order made on 10th April 1991. The Union of India, Delhi Administration, States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, West Bengal, Bihar and Gujarat have net yet filed their affidavits. The Union of India, Delhi Administration, States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, West Bengal, Bihar and Gujarat have net yet filed their affidavits. When we looked for their Counsel to find out the reason why the respective Standing Counsel for the States have developed such callousness to Court's proceedings we found many of them were not even present. 4. In this proceeding a social problem is being considered by the Court. It is the obligation of Standing Counsel retained by the States and who are officers of the Court to comply with the directions of the Court. We are in a position to appreciate the attitude of the various Standing Counsel nor are we in a position to tolerate indiscipline. In terms of our order of 10th April 1991, we set those States who had not complied with the order ex-parte and preclude them 3 from participating in the hearing of the case. The matter shall now proceed with the assistance of the petitioner and the States of Orissa and Punjab as also the States of Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan whose affidavits have subsequently come and such other States and Union Territories who may have already filed their affidavits. The decision of the Court would, however, bind every State and Union Territory. A copy of the proceedings of today shall be communicated 3 to the Chief Secretary of every State and Union Territory which is set ex-parte by our order. A copy of this order may also be issued to the Standing Counsel for the States and Union Territories. 5. The matter shall now be called on the 9th July 1991 for fixing a date of hearing.