JUDGMENT By the Court.—Pursuant to our order dated 11.3.2008 following are present and have filed their personal affidavits through the Chief Standing Counsel : (1) Sri Prashant Kumar Misra, Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow. (2) Sri Jagan Mathews, Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow. (3) Sri J.N. Chamber, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow. (4) Sri S.M.A. Abdi, Principal Secretary, Law, Government of U.P., Lucknow. (5) Sri Vikram Singh, D.G.P., U.P., Lucknow. (6) Sri Navtej Singh, Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur. 2. Besides, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P., Lucknow, who is also present in the Court, has filed an application being Application No. 65871 of 2008 seeking recall of our order dated 11.3.2008 in so far as it has required personal appearance of the aforesaid officers. This application is supported by an affidavit. He has also filed a supplementary affidavit on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, i.e., Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the “Mandi Parishad"). 3. We have heard Sri C.L. Pandey, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners, Sri Jyotindra Mishra, Advocate General assisted by Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the aforesaid officers as well as the respondent-State of U.P. and Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan, Advocate for Mandi Parishad. 4. Normally for disposal of a writ petition this Court does not require presence of the parties to the litigation and more so, the officers of the State Government, but at times, when the Court found their presence necessary to explain certain aspects, the persons and authorities are required to appear before the Court. 4. Normally for disposal of a writ petition this Court does not require presence of the parties to the litigation and more so, the officers of the State Government, but at times, when the Court found their presence necessary to explain certain aspects, the persons and authorities are required to appear before the Court. We are aware that calling such senior officers of the State Government like, Chief Secretary and some of the Principal Secretaries of various departments may cause, at times, some hindrance in the regular functioning of the Government, therefore, normally the Court refrain from directing such senior officers to be personally present before the Court but when the Court is faced with a situation where the very system of administration of justice is sought to be made ineffective due to sheer indifference and inaction on the part of the State Government, and, particularly, the authorities who are supposed to execute and implement the orders and directions of the Court, then this Court will be failing in its duty if such authorities are not required to explain such conduct of theirs. 5. This case is an example of such a situation. Despite of a mandate issued by this Court to all the aforesaid officers to execute and implement certain directions of this Court, for the last almost five years, the said directions have not been carried out and there is no explanation, whatsoever, on the part of the said authorities before the Court. The situation is really unfortunate and more unfortunate is the conduct of such authorities who have allowed it to happen. 6. To understand the problem and issue it would be appropriate to remind of certain relevant facts giving rise to the present dispute. 7. Vide notification dated 9.3.1981 published under Section 7(2)(b) of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) the State Government notified that wholesale trade in certain commodities of agricultural produce shall be carried on only at the new Mandi site whose location was specified in the said notification and we would refer the same hereinafter as “Naubasta Market Yard”. About 39 agricultural produces were specified in the said notification excluding fruits and vegetables. Subsequently, vide notification dated 5.11.1997 several fruits and vegetables were also included in the items mentioned in the notification dated 9.3.1981. About 39 agricultural produces were specified in the said notification excluding fruits and vegetables. Subsequently, vide notification dated 5.11.1997 several fruits and vegetables were also included in the items mentioned in the notification dated 9.3.1981. The result would have been that the persons carrying on wholesale business in all those commodities could have carried on their business only at Naubasta Market Yard and nowhere else in the City of Kanpur. The aforesaid notifications were challenged in a bunch of writ petitions which were ultimately decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 1.7.2003 in Kanpur Aloo Arhati Association and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2003(2) UPLBEC 1588 and this Court upheld the aforesaid notifications, dismissed all the writ petitions and vacated interim orders, stating as under : “Hence, we find no illegality in the impugned notifications, and all these writ petitions are dismissed and interim orders vacated.” 8. However, since the wholesale Mandis at other places were continuing for long and Naubasta Market Yard required some development for settlement of the wholesalers, this Court directed that a committee shall be set up for the said purpose which shall look after and monitor development work at Naubasta Market Yard so that the traders on shifting in the said area may get requisite facilities like appropriate space, accommodation, sewerage, water supply, electric and telephone supply etc. 9. Irrespective of the said constitution of committee for monitoring proper development of Naubasta Market Yard, this Court, however, issued a firm direction for shifting of the existing wholesale Mandis covered under the aforesaid two notifications to the notified market area within one year and in para 56 and 57 of the judgement issued following directions : “56. However, we give a firm directive to the authorities that under no condition should the existing wholesale Mandis in Kanpur City be allowed to remain at their existing sites at Kidwai Nagar, Cooperganj, Collectorganj, Badshahi Naka etc., beyond one year from the date of this judgement, and they must be shifted to the Navin Mandi Sthal, Naubasta (Hamirpur Road) latest within one year from the date of delivery of this judgment. It is made clear that there will be no pick and choose in this connection, and all the wholesale dealers have to go to the new site within one year from today. It is made clear that there will be no pick and choose in this connection, and all the wholesale dealers have to go to the new site within one year from today. The matter has been dragging on for 26 years, and it cannot be allowed to drag on forever. 57. Let the Registrar General of this Court send copy of this judgment forthwith to the Chief Secretary, U.P., Secretaries of the Departments of Food and Civil Supplies, Home, Law as well as the D.G.P., U.P. and the Commissioner, Kanpur Division who will ensure strict compliance with this judgment.” 10. The said directions, however, have not been complied with in their entirety so far and it is admitted case of the parties that fruits and vegetables wholesale dealers are still operating their business at Kidwai Nagar Mandi and other places in the City and have not been shifted to the notified market yard. 11. Sri Pandey, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners contended that since Naubasta Market Yard lack sufficient space to accommodate all wholesale dealers who were carrying on their business at Kidwai Nagar and other Mandi places, therefore, they could not have been adjusted therein. Now they have been required to shift their business at another place notified as Additional Mandi Sthal at Sachendi though they cannot be forced to shift their business at Sachendi and are entitled to allot space and to carry on their business either at Naubasta Market Yard otherwise they are entitled to continue their business at Kidwai Nagar Mandi and other places where they are already working. It is for this reason that they have not shifted or exercised option for shifting of their business and considering this request of the petitioners, an interim order was passed by this Court on 27.12.2007 directing that till the next date of listing, allotment of shops in pursuance of the impugned notice shall not be made to the petitioners and status quo with regard to functioning of the petitioners shall be maintained. 12. The interim order dated 27.12.2007 has already been vacated by us vide our order dated 11.3.2008. 13. To explain as to what steps were taken or whether any steps at all were taken pursuant to this Court’s judgement dated 1.7.2003, Sri Prashant Kumar Misra, Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow has filed his own affidavit. 12. The interim order dated 27.12.2007 has already been vacated by us vide our order dated 11.3.2008. 13. To explain as to what steps were taken or whether any steps at all were taken pursuant to this Court’s judgement dated 1.7.2003, Sri Prashant Kumar Misra, Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow has filed his own affidavit. The defence taken by him, in brief, is, that he has been posted as Chief Secretary on 1.7.2007 and the judgement dated 1.7.2003 of this Court came to his notice only when he received letter dated 11.3.2008 of Chief standing Counsel communicating this Courts order dated 11.3.2008. A meeting was convened by him immediately thereafter on 12.3.2008 summoning all concerned officers to apprise him about follow up action which shows that the judgment of this Court was received through office of the Chief Standing Counsel on 24.7.2003 and the then Chief Secretary marked it for Agriculture Production Commissioner who at that time was also holding the office of Chairman, Mandi Parishad, U.P. Since thereafter nothing has been persuaded at the level of Chief Secreary in the matter. The action taking report which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed by Sri Prashant Kumar Misra, Chief Secretary, shows that as per the direction of this Court a committee of eight members was constituted which held its meeting on 22.11.2003 and took certain decisions about further action. A letter dated 26.12.2003 sent by Mandi Samiti, Naubasta Kanpur for sanction of Additional Market Yard at Kanpur. On 25.1.2004 the committee decided for shifting of various wholesale traders to Naubasta except of those dealing in Potatos and other vegetables. Thereafter, the allotment of shops was made on 19.5.2004 and 20.5.2004. Letters of allotment were issued in May 2004. On 9.6.2004 the committee selected land at Village Sachendi (Chakarpur) Kalpi Road, Kanpur for Additional Market Yard and proposal for land acquisition sent for approval to Director, Mandi Parishad on 11.6.2004. On 28.6.2004 the committee prevented wholesale traders to carry on business in foodgrains, pulses, oilseeds, Gur, General merchandise, vegetables and Fruit at any other place except Naubasta Market Yard. Some of the shops were again allotted on 28.7.2004. On 25.11.2004 notification under Section 4/17 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for acquiring land for Additional Market Yard and notification under Section 6/17 was issued on 31.3.2005. Some of the shops were again allotted on 28.7.2004. On 25.11.2004 notification under Section 4/17 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for acquiring land for Additional Market Yard and notification under Section 6/17 was issued on 31.3.2005. Possession of the land for Additional Market Yard was taken on 3.7.2005 and construction started on 8.8.2005. The construction completed and the Additional Market Yard was transferred to Mandi Samiti, Naubasta, Kanpur on 15.12.2007. Thereafter on 22.12.2007 notice was published inviting applications for allotment of shops at Additional Market Yard, Sachendi whereagainst interim order was passed by this Court on 27.12.2007. After vacation of interim order on 11.3.2008 the process of allotment of shops at the Additional Market Yard has been revived and information has been published in daily newspaper “Amar Ujala” on 15.3.2008. 14. Similar affidavits have been filed by all other authorities wherein everybody has taken the defence that he has recently been posted at the present place and thereafter for various steps taken, the same defence as that of Sri Prashant Kumar Misra, Chief Secretary has been taken. 15. In nutshell, the entire defence is that the then Chief Secretary was relieved of his duty by marking the judgment to the Agriculture Production Commissioner who was holding the office of Chairman, Mandi Samiti at that time and thereafter nobody has taken care as to whether the direction contained in the judgment have been implemented or not and the defence taken in all the affidavits is that they are recently posted in the present place and therefore, have no responsibility. 16. In our view, this defence is not only unfair, unreasonable, and unacceptable but cannot absolve the aforesaid authorities from their responsibility of ensuring that a mandamus issued by this Court, communicated to them, is complied with in words and spirit. For that purpose, they are obliged to take all steps as permissible in law. Mere change of person in the office cannot provide an alibi to the newly posted person to show his ignorance of the earlier proceedings and thereby make excuse for inaction in the matter. State is not a natural person but it is a juristic person. It works and functions through officers/authorities who are natural persons. The individual may come and go on changing but the office continues to be the same. State is not a natural person but it is a juristic person. It works and functions through officers/authorities who are natural persons. The individual may come and go on changing but the office continues to be the same. Any person, successor in office, cannot justify inaction and non compliance of the Court’s order on the ground that he was not in the office when the order or judgment was communicated to the predecessor-in-office at the relevant time. It is true that if someone has recently been posted and is in the midst of apprising himself of such pending matters and in the meantime the Court take an action requiring him to show as to why the order has not been complied with, he may take a defence that since he has recently joined the office and was in the process of acquainting himself with all pending matters and due to paucity of time i.e. due to short interregnum period between his joining and the explanation sought by Court, he could not got himself acquainted in such pending matters. In such a case the Court may accept such defence and the officer concerned may be found justified in not taking any action immediately after his joining due to lack of information but if an officer has already joined for sufficiently long time or a reasonable time and yet he has not been able to get himself acquainted with such pending matters, then such defence cannot be accepted and this would show total apathy and indifference on the part of such authority or officer in taking serious action for ensuring that the orders of the Court are complied with in words and spirit strictly and within the time prescribed in the judgment or within a reasonable time. 17. 17. On inquiry as to how the particular Principal Secretary or even the Chief Secretary would be able to monitor such matters and whether the aforesaid officer(s) keep some kind of register or have posted a particular person who keep track of all such matters so as to apprise the changed officer about the pending matters, we are informed by the Chief Secretary that no such procedure is being followed and it is only when the contempt proceedings are drawn and notices are received or the officer concerned is summoned in the Court, such matters see the light of the day and are taken up for compliance immediately thereafter. This state of affairs cannot be appreciated and has to be condemned and deprecated in strongest terms. Like other executive functions, one of the important function on the part of executive is to take action and implement judicial orders wherever the State Government is party and it has been required to do or not to do something. The Courts discharge an important function in democracy i.e. dispensation of justice but their judgment which involves State would get life only when they are executed by the authorities who are supposed to execute and obey the same otherwise the orders and directions of the Court would be a mere dead letter, and, if the same are not implemented, it will erode the public confidence in the judiciary which would be very disastrous and damaging for the entire democratic system of which judiciary is one of the important wing. The executive, therefore, cannot give lesser importance and attention to the orders of this Court. They are bound to ensure that the Courts order, as and when are communicated, are executed and implemented without any further delay and in the manner as directed by the Court. This is of course subject to the authorities further right of appeal etc. 18. Learned Advocate General and Chief Secretary, U.P. Government at this stage informed the Court and assured that they are taking up the matter now in its true spirit and propose to constitute a monitoring cell with a nodal officer in every department so as to keep a watch over such matters and to maintain a track record/progress of all such matters. In this regard he has already held a meeting and further action would be taken within next few weeks. In this regard he has already held a meeting and further action would be taken within next few weeks. The Chief Secretary of U.P., Government also assures that the directions issued by this Court vide judgement dated 1.7.2003 in so far as it says that the existing wholesale Mandi at Kanpur city at the existing site of Kidwai Nagar, Cooperganj, Collectorganj, Badshahi Naka etc. shall not be allowed to continue, would be implemented very soon and latest by 30.6.2008. 19. At this stage Sri Pandey, submitted that so long as all the facilities are not made available at Naubasta Market Yard and whole sellers are not adjusted at Naubasta itself the petitioners cannot be restrained from carrying on their business at the existing place and they also cannot be forced to seek allotment of shops at Additional Market Yard, Sachendi since they were entitled to be adjusted at Naubasta Market Yard as per the judgment dated 1.7.2003. 20. We have considered the submission but find no force therein. A perusal of the provisions of the Act makes it clear that as soon as a notification is published declaring an area to be a market yard thereafter no one can carry on business in such agricultural produces for which a market yard has been notified, at place(s), other than the notified area. It is true that no one can be forced to shift his business from one place to another but, certainly, one can be restrained from carrying on business at a particular place if the law so provides. This Court in Amrit Rice Mills v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, 1987 UPLBEC 394 while upholding the vires of Section 7(2) (b) of the Act clearly observed that no person can carry on his business in certain agricultural produces at a place other than notified area. This Court in Amrit Rice Mills v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, 1987 UPLBEC 394 while upholding the vires of Section 7(2) (b) of the Act clearly observed that no person can carry on his business in certain agricultural produces at a place other than notified area. A Division Bench of this Court [in which one of us (Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) was a member] in Writ Petition No. 55822 of 2005, Sabzi Mandi Adhati Association and another v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 3.9.2006 referring to various provisions of the Act held as under : “Therefore, from the scheme of the Act it is apparent that once a Market Area is notified under the Act, in respect to all or certain agricultural produce, no transaction contrary to the provisions of the Act can be permitted since the same is also an offence and the offender can be punished in a competent Court of law at the instance of the authority competent and authorised under Section 38 of the Act.” 21. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court also issued direction to the authorities not to allow any person to carry on business at a place which is not a notified area as is evident from the following : “Be that as it may, the fact remains that Lalpur, as on today, is not an area notified under the Act for the purpose of wholesale transaction in agricultural produces and, therefore, no business activities contrary to the provisions of Act can be permitted by the authorities in the said area. In the circumstance the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to take such steps as permissible under law and not to permit any person as well as the respondent No. 4 to run or do wholesale business in the specified agricultural produce at any place known as Lalapur or other which is not a declared or notified market area under the Act......” 22. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law the petitioners in presenti cannot claim any right to carry on business in agricultural produces for which market area has already notified at Naubasta and Sachendi at any other place. The petitioners have to stop their business at places other than the notified market yards. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law the petitioners in presenti cannot claim any right to carry on business in agricultural produces for which market area has already notified at Naubasta and Sachendi at any other place. The petitioners have to stop their business at places other than the notified market yards. That being so, if the petitioners are acting in the breach of such statutory provisions, their act is an offence also, the respondents are bound to take steps for implementation of law and cannot shield the offenders on any pretext whatsoever. Therefore, the objections of learned Counsel for the petitioners has no merit. The statement that the judgment of this Court dated 1.7.2003 in so far as it direct to restrain the persons from carry on their business at the existing sites would be implemented latest by 30.6.2008 having been made by the senior most civil servant of the State i.e. the Chief Secretary, U.P. Government, we have no reason to doubt thereof in its correctness and efficacy, both. However, looking to the events of the past, and, the fact, that the enforcement of law has already failed to take effect in the last more than 30 years, we do not intend to make any further comment at this stage and defer further hearing of this matter till 3.7.2008. 23. In the meantime, the Chief Secretary, U.P., Government shall file his affidavit in respect to the progress of matter pertaining to compliance of this Court’s judgment dated 1.7.2003 as well as setting up of monitoring cell etc., as stated above. Personal appearance of all the officers who are present today is exempted until further orders. 24. Before parting, there is another disturbing aspect which we are constrained to notice. The affidavit filed in support of Application No. 65871 of 2008 in para 17 states as under : “17. That during this four and half years several authorities have been transferred and in some of cases, authorities have been transferred repeatedly, therefore, no blame can be levied on any of the authorities, if at all it was the sole responsibility of the Mandi Samiti to get the wholesale trade shifted because it was statutory duty cast upon the Mandi Samiti to shift the wholesale trade as was directed by this Hon’ble Court under the order dated 1.7.2003. All other authorities named in the judgment were only to help the Mandi Samiti to get the wholesale trade shifted within one year, but the Mandi Samiti was also helpless as looking to the magnitude of wholesale trade in fruits and vegetables, it was not possible to accommodate that trade at Naubasta, due to that this delay has been caused and this has been condoned by this Hon’ble Court while rejecting the Contempt petition and this has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. It means that on the judicial side Court was satisfied with the process of shifting of wholesale trade in fruits and vegetables to the present site.” 25. When we enquired from Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Director, Mandi Parishad as to whether he was authorised to make the said statement by respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. the State of U.P. and Chief Secretary, he tendered apology and said that the said drafting was made by the Standing Counsel and he signed the affidavit without reading, though such statement he never intended to make. The contents of para 17 of the affidavit shows that the same have been made in a most reckless and negligent manner for justifying long delay in implementation of the judgment of this Court by simply saying that many of the officers have changed and, therefore, no one can be blamed. This is a statement of shirking responsibility and that too in a contemptuous manner as if once an officer is transferred, he cannot be blamed for his acts and omissions of the period when he was in the office which has resulted in disobedience and non-compliance of even the Court’s order. Learned Advocate General felt sorry for the averments made in para 17 of the affidavit, above, and requested this Court to show mercy by pardoning the officer concerned who has sworn the said affidavit. In view thereof, we are not taking any further action in the matter but find it necessary to record our strongest disapproval for the conduct shown by a responsible officer of the Government who is holding the office of Director, Mandi Samiti and hope that in future he would take more care so as not to repeat such conduct again. 26. The Application No. 65871 of 2008 has become infructuous since all the officers are already present, therefore, the said application is rejected as infructuous. 27. 26. The Application No. 65871 of 2008 has become infructuous since all the officers are already present, therefore, the said application is rejected as infructuous. 27. List this matter, as directed above, on 3.7.2008 for further orders. 28. The office is directed to furnish a certified copy of this order to the learned Chief Standing Counsel within a week for communication and compliance. ————