Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 830 (PAT)

Sobh Nath Singh v. State Of Bihar

2005-09-15

NAVIN SINHA

body2005
Judgment 1. This Court by an order dated 26.4.2005 while disposing-off the petitioners grievance would have noticed and recorded the manner in which the case was conducted on behalf of the State Government by the Secretary Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar. For reasons as recorded in the order, which the Court does not consider necessary to reiterate presently, this Court had required that a copy of this order be sent inter alia to the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar so that he may look into the matter and take such appropriate action as he deem fit. The Chief Secretary was further required to file an affidavit to that effect. The matter was accordingly adjourned for the 1st week of August, 2005. 2. What this Court would have noticed in the order dated 26.4.2005 with regard to the manner in which the case was conducted on behalf of the State would find echo in the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 2237 (Union of India & Anr. vs. Rahul Rasgotra & Ors.). The directions issued by this Court were no more than what the Supreme Court had directed in a similar situation. This Court considers it proper to quote para 14 of the judgment in its entirety which would read as follows: "Before parting with the case, we are constrained to place on record our deep distress at the manner in which the case on behalf of the Government are generally conducted even in this Court and also when the Government comes to this Court to overcome the consequence of an adverse order made against it. We do so with a feeling almost of despair since our constant lament orally and, at times, even in writing has so far evinced no appropriate response for improvement. On a similar occasion, this Court in Union of India vs. A. Radhakrishnan, [ (1991)3 SCR 895 : (1991) AIR SCW 2370] observed thus: "This matter brings to the force once again the ineptitude with which litigation is conducted quite often on behalf of the Government of India and State Governments even when important issues having lasting and wide repercussions are involved. The point in this case relates to the validity of a policy of the railway administration and is likely to affect the staff pattern in several units. The point in this case relates to the validity of a policy of the railway administration and is likely to affect the staff pattern in several units. In spite of this fact, to support validity of the impugned policy the required materials were not produced in the High Court and to overcome the adverse decision several opportunities given by us to produce the entire relevant record were not availed. The learned Additional Solicitor General informed us after several adjournments that better performance is not possible. We, therefore, conclude the hearing and proceed to decide on the available materials. It is indeed fortunate for the appellants that our conclusion is in their favour...." There is no improvement in the situation. An argument was advanced on behalf of the respondents that the cadre allocation to respondent No. 1 was made prior to allotment of the Service to him on account of which it was invalid. Material documents to negative the same must be in possession of the Government of India but they were not produced before the Tribunal or even before us, in spite of opportunity given by us. The learned Additional Solicitor General expressed his utter helplessness in the matter and informed us that his efforts to obtain and produce those documents from the concerned authorities had failed. This shows the apathy of the persons responsible for the conduct of the case on behalf of the Government of India. We are not sure whether such lapses of the persons responsible for conduct of the case on behalf of the Government are deliberate or inadvertent but they are certainly culpable which need to be investigated by the concerned authorities to identify the delinquents and punish them in public interest. It is time that the derelicts are also held accountable and liable for the loss of public money due to their lapses. The stage is now reached for taking drastic steps to arrest further decadence and to implement the avowed promises held out for improvement of the working of the system. Governments being the largest litigants, radical improvement is needed in the functioning of their machinery by reducing frivolous litigation and ensuring proper conduct of the necessary litigation. The stage is now reached for taking drastic steps to arrest further decadence and to implement the avowed promises held out for improvement of the working of the system. Governments being the largest litigants, radical improvement is needed in the functioning of their machinery by reducing frivolous litigation and ensuring proper conduct of the necessary litigation. Unless the desirable steps in this behalf are taken in the right earnest, any number of seminars and conferences to devise means for reducing the backlog in courts is an exercise in futility and the resolutions made therein, are empty slogans. We reiterate this with the found hope that the concerned authorities would wake up to the true malaise and work to make the programme of improving its machinery, a reality." 3 The matter was then taken up on 4.8.2005 when the proceedings were required to be adjourned for five weeks in context of a letter written by the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar. On the said date while adjourning the case for five weeks the Court had again required the Chief Secretary to file his affidavit in terms of the order dated 26.4.2005. This Court would further find from the records of the case that the order dated 26.4.2005 would have been duly communicated to the office of the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna on 20.5.2005. It is unfortunate that the Chief Secretary has still not filed his affidavit. The order dated 4.8.2005 would have been passed in presence of the Standing Counsel No. 9 representing the Chief Secretary. Standing Counsel No. 9, Shri K.K. Sinha today informs the Court that he would have sent a fax letter and also verbally communicated to the office of the Chief Secretary on 13.9.2005 the order of this Court requiring him to file such affidavit. In the circumstances this Court considers it proper to adjourn this matter for 6.10.2005 to enable the Chief Secretary to file such affidavit. This Court would hope and trust that on the said date the necessary affidavit would be filed by the Chief Secretary and that there would be no occasion for the Court to proceed on this aspect of the matter further. 4. During course of the proceedings Shri Dineshwar Mishra, Advocate, files vakalatnama and enter appearance on behalf of the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. During course of the proceedings Shri Dineshwar Mishra, Advocate, files vakalatnama and enter appearance on behalf of the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. When the Court queried from the Counsel whether the Secretary would have obtained necessary approval from the Government before his private engagement in accordance with the Government procedure, learned Counsel was not in a position to answer the query. 5. On 4.8.2005 this Court by a reasoned order would have required the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, to file an affidavit giving details of the applications made by him for certified copies of the ordersheet of the proceeding and details with regard to the refusal of the High Court to furnish him the certified copies, thus preventing him from preferring an appeal against the order that he be aggrieved against. No such affidavit has been filed. On the contrary "a show cause" has been filed on behalf of the Secretary that the error committed by him during the proceedings in the writ application leading to the order dated 26.4.2005, that the case would not have been conducted by him on behalf of the State Government responsibly, was a bona fide mistake. That he would be seeking unqualified and unconditional apology for the same. That he would take due care and caution in future in making statements in a judicial proceeding. The adverse remarks against him would be detrimental to his unblemished career. The Court would take up this aspect of the matter for consideration at a later stage. Let the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, comply the order dated 4.8.2005 and file the necessary affidavit in terms thereof. 6. Put up this matter under the same heading on 6.10.2005.