ORDER : Swatanter Kumar, J. In Writ Petition 1. Despite repeated orders and opportunity having been granted by this Court, the States of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jammu and Kashmir have not filed affidavits. It is a matter of record that despite a contempt petition having been filed, the concerned authorities of the States have not taken care to comply with the orders of the Court. Such attitude of the State Administration hierarchy needs to be deprecated. 2. Counsel appearing for the State of Jammu and Kashmir and Uttar Pradesh state that their affidavits are ready and the same could be filed. This is hardly an excuse. The order was passed on 16th January, 2012 to file affidavits within a period of four weeks. The non-compliance of the order cannot be ignored. Thus, we direct the Secretaries of the concerned Department i.e. Secretary (Health & Social Welfare) of the above States to remain present in this Court on the next date of hearing. 3. Liberty is granted to file affidavits within one week from today subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10, 000/- to be recovered from the erring officers of the respective States. 4. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India submits that as recorded in the order dated 2nd April, 2012, the appropriate bill has already been introduced in the Parliament namely, "Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Bill, 2012" and is scheduled as item No. 12 for today. Contempt Petition No. 132 of 2012 5. There are three respondents from the State of Uttarakhand. One is the Chief Secretary, other the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Uttarakhand and thirdly, the District Magistrate, Haridwar, Uttarakhand. While the first two have not even cared to file an affidavit, the District Magistrate, Haridwar has filed an affidavit, the correctness and authenticity of which is questioned by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who points out that the Census Report, 2011 published by the Government of India shows that there are a large number of manually serviced latrines in the State of Uttarakhand and nearly in 12 districts stated therein. 6. A copy of the Report has been placed before us. 7. Prima facie, we are of the view that the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar, has been filed in a very casual manner and without actually verifying the facts. 6. A copy of the Report has been placed before us. 7. Prima facie, we are of the view that the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar, has been filed in a very casual manner and without actually verifying the facts. The Chief Secretary and the concerned Secretary expected and were in fact the competent authority who should have filed the affidavits in regard to the entire State. We are not prepared to condone this attitude adopted by the senior officers of the State. Consequently, we grant them by way of last opportunity, one week's time to file affidavit subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10, 000/- and direct the Secretary as well as the District Magistrate, Haridwar to be present in Court. 8. We issue notice to show cause why the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar, be not struck off the record if the same is found to be incorrect and appropriate action in accordance with law be also not taken against the said officer. 9. Stand over for two weeks.