Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3076 (ALL)

STATE OF U. P. v. SOMDEO SHARMA

2016-09-08

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the applicants/appellants. ORDER ON DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATIONS 1. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 292 of 2016 Delay Condonation Application No. 278616 of 2016 (i) This appeal has been filed beyond limitation by 4 years and 48 days alongwith delay condonation application and affidavit. (ii) In paragraph 2 of the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application it is stated as under: “That, in the reference No. 384 of 1990 the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 Bulandshahar has finally allowed the reference vide order dated 28.3.2009. It is not clear from the available records of the department that as to why the then Jiledar Court Case, Madhya Ganga Canal Construction Division-10, Bulandshahar Mr. Banni Singh, has not take appropriate steps for filing the appeals. During the Execution proceedings having No. 09 of 2012 when it transpired that no appeal has been preferred by the Jiledar as such an explanation was sought from him on 29.10.2015. For kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court a copy of show-cause dated 29.10.2015 issued to the then Jiledar is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 1 to this affidavit.” (iii) Subsequent paragraphs of this affidavit attempts to explain delay after 30.10.2015. The affidavit does not at all explain the delay till 30.10.2015. Thus the delay has not been explained and consequently delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected. 2. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 293 of 2016 Delay Condonation Application No. 278631 of 2016 (i) This appeal has been filed beyond limitation by 7 years and 85 days alongwith delay condonation application and affidavit. (ii) In paragraph 2 of the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application it is stated as under: “That, in the reference No. 386 of 1991 the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 Bulandshahar has finally allowed the reference vide order dated 2.3.2009. It is not clear from the available records of the department that as to why the then Jiledar Court Case, Madhya Ganga Canal Construction Division-10, Bulandshahar Mr. Banni Singh, has not take appropriate steps for filing the appeals. During the Execution proceedings having No. 07 of 2009 when it transpired that no appeal has been preferred by the Jiledar as such an explanation was sought from him on 19.9.2015. Banni Singh, has not take appropriate steps for filing the appeals. During the Execution proceedings having No. 07 of 2009 when it transpired that no appeal has been preferred by the Jiledar as such an explanation was sought from him on 19.9.2015. For kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court a copy of show-cause dated 19.9.2015 issued to the then Jiledar is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 1 to this affidavit.” (iii) Subsequent paragraphs of this affidavit attempts to explain delay after 19.9.2015. The affidavit does not at all explain the delay till 19.9.2015. Thus the delay has not been explained and consequently delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected. 3. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 294 of 2016 Delay Condonation Application No. 278650 of 2016 (i) This appeal has been filed beyond limitation by 7 years and 123 days alongwith delay condonation application and affidavit. (ii) In paragraph 2 of the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application it is stated as under: “That, in the reference No. 74 of 1989 the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 Bulandshahar has finally allowed the reference vide order dated 23.1.2009. It is not clear from the available records of the department that as to why the then Jiledar Court Case, Madhya Ganga Canal Construction Division-10, Bulandshahar Mr. Banni Singh, has not take appropriate steps for filing the appeals. During the Execution proceedings having No. 01/2009 when it transpired that no appeal has been preferred by the Jiledar as such an explanation was sought from him on 19.9.2015. For kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court a copy of show-cause dated 19.9.2015 issued to the then Jiledar is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 1 to this affidavit.” (iii) Subsequent paragraphs of this affidavit attempts to explain delay after 19.9.2015. The affidavit does not at all explain the delay till 19.9.2015. Thus the delay has not been explained and consequently delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected. 4. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 295 of 2016 Delay Condonation Application No. 278665 of 2016 (i) This appeal has been filed beyond limitation by 7 years and 35 days alongwith delay condonation application and affidavit. Thus the delay has not been explained and consequently delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected. 4. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 295 of 2016 Delay Condonation Application No. 278665 of 2016 (i) This appeal has been filed beyond limitation by 7 years and 35 days alongwith delay condonation application and affidavit. (ii) In paragraph 2 of the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application it is stated as under: “That, in the reference No. 369 of 1990 the S.C.S.T./Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 Bulandshahar has finally allowed the reference vide order dated 21.4.2009. It is not clear from the available records of the department that as to why the then Jiledar Court Case, Madhya Ganga Canal Construction Division-10, Bulandshahar Mr. Banni Singh, has not take appropriate steps for filing the appeals. During the Execution proceedings having No. 26 of 2009 when it transpired that no appeal has been preferred by the Jiledar as such an explanation was sought from him on 29.10.2015. For kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court a copy of show-cause dated 29.10.2015 issued to the then Jiledar is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 1 to this affidavit.” (iii) Subsequent paragraphs of this affidavit attempts to explain delay after 30.10.2015. The affidavit does not at all explain the delay till 30.10.2015. Thus the delay has not been explained and consequently delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected. 5. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 296 of 2016 Delay Condonation Application No. 278665 of 2016 (i) This appeal has been filed beyond limitation by 7 years and 123 days alongwith delay condonation application and affidavit. (ii) In paragraph 2 of the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application it is stated as under: “That, in the reference No. 75 of 1989 the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 Bulandshahar has finally allowed the reference vide order dated 23.1.2009. It is not clear from the available records of the department that as to why the then Jiledar Court Case, Madhya Ganga Canal Construction Division-10, Bulandshahar Mr. Banni Singh, has not take appropriate steps for filing the appeals. During the Execution proceedings having No. 03 of 2009 when it transpired that no appeal has been preferred by the Jiledar as such an explanation was sought from him on 19.9.2015. Banni Singh, has not take appropriate steps for filing the appeals. During the Execution proceedings having No. 03 of 2009 when it transpired that no appeal has been preferred by the Jiledar as such an explanation was sought from him on 19.9.2015. For kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court a copy of show-cause dated 19.9.2015 issued to the then Jiledar is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 1 to this affidavit.” (iii) Subsequent paragraphs of this affidavit attempts to explain delay after 19.9.2015. The affidavit does not at all explain the delay till 19.9.2015. Thus the delay has not been explained and consequently delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected. 6. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 297 of 2016 Delay Condonation Application No. 278690 of 2016 (i) This appeal has been filed beyond limitation by 7 years and 37 days alongwith delay condonation application and affidavit. (ii) In paragraph 2 of the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application it is stated as under: “That, in the reference No. 171 of 1991 the Special Judge S.C.S.T./Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 Bulandshahar has finally allowed the reference vide order dated 18.4.2009. It is not clear from the available records of the department that as to why the then Jiledar Court Case, Madhya Ganga Canal Construction Division-10, Bulandshahar Mr. Banni Singh, has not take appropriate steps for filing the appeals. During the Execution proceedings having No. 26 of 2009 when it transpired that no appeal has been preferred by the Jiledar as such an explanation was sought from him on 19.9.2015. For kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court a copy of show-cause dated 19.9.2015 issued to the then Jiledar is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 1 to this affidavit.” (iii) Subsequent paragraphs of this affidavit attempts to explain delay after 19.9.2015. The affidavit does not at all explain the delay till 19.9.2015. Thus the delay has not been explained and consequently delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected. 7. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 299 of 2016 Delay Condonation Application No. 279374 of 2016 (i) This appeal has been filed beyond limitation by 7 years and 122 days alongwith delay condonation application and affidavit. Thus the delay has not been explained and consequently delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected. 7. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 299 of 2016 Delay Condonation Application No. 279374 of 2016 (i) This appeal has been filed beyond limitation by 7 years and 122 days alongwith delay condonation application and affidavit. (ii) In paragraph 2 of the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application it is stated as under: “That, in the reference No. 76 of 1989 the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 Bulandshahar has finally allowed the reference vide order dated 23.1.2009. It is not clear from the available records of the department that as to why the then Jiledar Court Case, Madhya Ganga Canal Construction Division-10, Bulandshahar Mr. Banni Singh, has not take appropriate steps for filing the appeals. During the Execution proceedings having No. 02 of 2009 when it transpired that no appeal has been preferred by the Jiledar as such an explanation was sought from him on 19.9.2015. For kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court a copy of show-cause dated 19.9.2015 issued to the then Jiledar is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 1 to this affidavit.” (iii) Subsequent paragraphs of this affidavit attempts to explain delay after 19.9.2015. The affidavit does not at all explain the delay till 19.9.2015. Thus the delay has not been explained and consequently delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected. 8. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 300 of 2016 Delay Condonation Application No. 279381 of 2016 (i) This appeal has been filed beyond limitation by 7 years and 85 days alongwith delay condonation application and affidavit. (ii) In paragraph 2 of the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application it is stated as under: “That, in the reference No. 385 of 1991 the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 Bulandshahar has finally allowed the reference vide order dated 2.3.2009. It is not clear from the available records of the department that as to why the then Jiledar Court Case, Madhya Ganga Canal Construction Division-10, Bulandshahar Mr. Banni Singh, has not take appropriate steps for filing the appeals. During the Execution proceedings having No. 06 of 2009 when it transpired that no appeal has been preferred by the Jiledar as such an explanation was sought from him on 19.9.2015. Banni Singh, has not take appropriate steps for filing the appeals. During the Execution proceedings having No. 06 of 2009 when it transpired that no appeal has been preferred by the Jiledar as such an explanation was sought from him on 19.9.2015. For kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court a copy of show-cause dated 19.9.2015 issued to the then Jiledar is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 1 to this affidavit.” (iii) Subsequent paragraphs of this affidavit attempts to explain delay after 19.9.2015. The affidavit does not at all explain the delay till 19.9.2015. Thus the delay has not been explained and consequently delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected. 9. In Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, JT 2012 (4) SC 55, the Apex Court has held that the law of limitation is based on public policy. It ensures that litigants approach the Court without unreasonable delay. At the same time Courts are empowered to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown. Though a liberal and justice oriented approach is to be adopted, it also to be kept in mind that successful litigant has acquired rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and has spent time pursuing the litigation. 10. In Office of the Chief Post Master General and others v. Living Media India Ltd. and another, JT 2012(2) SC 483, the Apex Court has held as follows: “The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. It is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the prices. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.” 11. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.” 11. From the facts as aforenoted, it is absolutely clear that the appellants have miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone the aforenoted long delay in filing these appeals. Under the circumstances delay in filing these appeals are not condonable. Consequently all the delay condonation applications are rejected. ORDER FOR COSTS 12. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 292 of 2016 (i) The impugned judgment dated 7.4.2012 has been passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (Court No. 2), Bulandshahar in Land Acquisition Reference No. 139 of 1988 which relates to determination of market value of the land of the claimant acquired by Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 dated 14.8.1986 published on 31.1.1987 relating to village Shikarpur, Tehsil and District Bulandshahar. The land was acquired for construction of Lakhawati Branch under the Madhya Ganga Canal Scheme. By the impugned judgment the market value of the acquired land has been determined @ of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard based on the judgment in other Land Acquisition References. (ii) The State exchequer has been burdened with huge wasteful expenditure in filing this appeal. Merely the Court fees component in filing this appeal is Rs. 27,858/-. 13. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 293 of 2016 (i) The impugned judgment dated 2.3.2009 has been passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (Court No. 2), Bulandshahar in Land Acquisition Reference No. 386 of 1991 which relates to determination of market value of the land of the claimant acquired by Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, published on 14.9.1988 relating to Village Raniwal, Pargana Pahasu, Tehsil Khurja and District Bulandshahar. The land was acquired for construction of Hazaratpur Minor under the Madhya Ganga Canal Scheme. By the impugned judgment the market value of the acquired land has been determined @ of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard based on the judgment in other Land Acquisition References. (ii) The State exchequer has been burdened with huge wasteful expenditure in filing this appeal. Merely the Court fees component in filing this appeal is Rs. 19758/-. 14. By the impugned judgment the market value of the acquired land has been determined @ of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard based on the judgment in other Land Acquisition References. (ii) The State exchequer has been burdened with huge wasteful expenditure in filing this appeal. Merely the Court fees component in filing this appeal is Rs. 19758/-. 14. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 294 of 2016 (i) The impugned judgment dated 23.1.2009 has been passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (Court No. 2), Bulandshahar in Land Acquisition Reference No. 76 of 1989 which relates to determination of market value of the land of the claimant acquired by Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, published on 31.8.1985 relating to Village Bhaipur, Pargana Pahasu, Tehsil Khurja and District Bulandshahar. The land was acquired for construction of Lakhawati Branch Canal and Minor under the Madhya Ganga Canal Scheme. By the impugned judgment the market value of the acquired land has been determined @ of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard based on the judgment in other Land Acquisition References. (ii) The State exchequer has been burdened with huge wasteful expenditure in filing this appeal. Merely the Court fees component in filing this appeal is Rs. 7195/-. 15. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 295 of 2016 (i). The impugned judgment dated 21.4.2009 has been passed by the Court of S.C.S.T. Act/Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar in Land Acquisition Reference No. 369 of 1990 which relates to determination of market value of the land of the claimant acquired by Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, dated 14.2.1986, published on 20.9.1986 relating to Village Aswar, District Bulandshahar. The land was acquired for construction of Partapur Rajwahe under the Madhya Ganga Canal Scheme. By the impugned judgment the market value of the acquired land has been determined @ of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard based on the judgment in other Land Acquisition References. (ii) The State exchequer has been burdened with huge wasteful expenditure in filing this appeal. Merely the Court fees component in filing this appeal is Rs. 13083/-. 16. By the impugned judgment the market value of the acquired land has been determined @ of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard based on the judgment in other Land Acquisition References. (ii) The State exchequer has been burdened with huge wasteful expenditure in filing this appeal. Merely the Court fees component in filing this appeal is Rs. 13083/-. 16. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 296 of 2016 (i) The impugned judgment dated 23.1.2009 has been passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (Court No. 2), Bulandshahar in Land Acquisition Reference No. 76 of 1989 which relates to determination of market value of the land of the claimant acquired by Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, published on 31.8.1985 relating to Village Bhaipur, Pargana Pahasu, Tehsil Khurja and District Bulandshahar. The land was acquired for construction of Lakhawati Branch Canal and Minor under the Madhya Ganga Canal Scheme. By the impugned judgment the market value of the acquired land has been determined @ of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard based on the judgment in other Land Acquisition References. (ii) The State exchequer has been burdened with huge wasteful expenditure in filing this appeal. Merely the Court fees component in filing this appeal is Rs. 33445/-. 17. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 297 of 2016 (i) The impugned judgment dated 18.4.2009 has been passed by the Court of Special Judge S.C.S.T. Act/Additional District Judge (Court No. 2), Bulandshahar in Land Acquisition Reference No. 171 of 1991 which relates to determination of market value of the land of the claimant acquired by Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 5.1.1985 published on 29.6.1985 relating to Village Mustafabad Dadua, District Bulandshahar. The land was acquired for construction of Hazaratpur Minor under the Madhya Ganga Canal Scheme. By the impugned judgment the market value of the acquired land has been determined @ of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard based on the judgment in other Land Acquisition References. (ii) The State exchequer has been burdened with huge wasteful expenditure in filing this appeal. Merely the Court fees component in filing this appeal is Rs. 34233/-. 18. By the impugned judgment the market value of the acquired land has been determined @ of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard based on the judgment in other Land Acquisition References. (ii) The State exchequer has been burdened with huge wasteful expenditure in filing this appeal. Merely the Court fees component in filing this appeal is Rs. 34233/-. 18. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 299 of 2016 (i) The impugned judgment dated 23.1.2009 has been passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (Court No. 2), Bulandshahar in Land Acquisition Reference No. 76 of 1989 which relates to determination of market value of the land of the claimant acquired by Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, published on 31.8.1985 relating to Village Bhaipur, Pargana Pahasu, Tehsil Khurja and District Bulandshahar. The land was acquired for construction of Lakhawati Branch Canal and Minor under the Madhya Ganga Canal Scheme. By the impugned judgment the market value of the acquired land has been determined @ of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard based on the judgment in other Land Acquisition References. (ii) The State exchequer has been burdened with huge wasteful expenditure in filing this appeal. Merely the Court fees component in filing this appeal is Rs. 4533/-. 19. FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 300 of 2016 (i) The impugned judgment dated 2.3.2009 has been passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (Court No. 2), Bulandshahar in Land Acquisition Reference No. 386 of 1991 which relates to determination of market value of the land of the claimant acquired by Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, published on 14.9.1988 relating to Village Raniwal, Pargana Pahasu, Tehsil Khurja and District Bulandshahar. The land was acquired for construction of Hazaratpur Minor under the Madhya Ganga Canal Scheme. By the impugned judgment the market value of the acquired land has been determined @ of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard based on the judgment in other Land Acquisition References. (ii) The State exchequer has been burdened with huge wasteful expenditure in filing this appeal. Merely the Court fees component in filing this appeal is Rs. 20358/-. 20. It has also been observed in the impugned judgments that against the judgments given in other L.A.Rs. 200/- per sq. yard based on the judgment in other Land Acquisition References. (ii) The State exchequer has been burdened with huge wasteful expenditure in filing this appeal. Merely the Court fees component in filing this appeal is Rs. 20358/-. 20. It has also been observed in the impugned judgments that against the judgments given in other L.A.Rs. relating to certain lands of Villages in question or the adjoining villages, the First Appeals filed by the present appellants were dismissed by the High Court and the claimants/tenure holders have also been paid compensation accordingly. Neither these findings of fact recorded in detail in the impugned judgments have been disputed by the appellants nor the relied upon judgments have been disputed. The appellants are well aware of the judgments passed in different Land Acquisition References and the first appeals which have been relied in the impugned judgments but they have not produced those judgments before this Court despite being asked. Appellants have neither pleaded nor disclosed during the arguments, despite being asked repeatedly, as to whether they have challenged the relied upon judgments. From the facts as briefly noted above it appears that these appeals have been filed by the Officers negligently and without any sense of responsibility towards the State. 21. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the appellants knew well at all the relevant point of time that neither the delay is condonable in the absence of any proper explanation for delay nor they have any case in view of the facts noted in the preceeding paragraph and yet these first appeals have been preferred for the reasons best known to the concerned Officers of the State Government, resulting in wastage of public money in filing these first appeals which are ex facie frivolous. 22. In the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Atma Singh Grewal, (2014) 13 SCC 666 (para 14), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “14. No doubt, when a case is decided in favour of a party, the Court can award cost as well in his favour. It is stressed by this Court that such cost should be in real and compensatory terms and not merely symbolic. There can be exemplary costs as well when the appeal is completely devoid of any merit. [See Rameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 ]. It is stressed by this Court that such cost should be in real and compensatory terms and not merely symbolic. There can be exemplary costs as well when the appeal is completely devoid of any merit. [See Rameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 ]. However, the moot question is as to whether imposition of costs alone will prove deterrent? We do not think so. We are of the firm opinion that imposition of cost on the State/PSU’s alone is not going to make much difference as the officers taking such irresponsible decisions to file appeals are not personally affected because of the reason that cost, if imposed, comes from the Government’s coffers. Time has, therefore, come to take next step viz. recovery of cost from such officers who take such frivolous decisions of filing appeals, even after knowing well that these are totally vexatious and uncalled for appeals. We clarify that such an order of recovery of cost from the officer concerned be passed only in those cases where appeal is found to be ex facie frivolous and the decision to file the appeal is also found to be palpably irrational and uncalled for.” (Emphasis supplied by me) 23. The law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court for imposition of cost and recovery thereof from the officers who took decision to file frivolous appeals, clearly attracts in the present set of facts. 24. In view of the aforesaid, all the delay condonation applications are rejected and consequently all the appeals also stand dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of each appeals. Thus total cost imposed comes to Rs. 4,00,000/- which shall be recovered by the State Government from the Officers who took decision to file these frivolous appeals and that too without offering any proper explanation for long delay of several years, knowing well that the appeals are frivolous and uncalled for on the pleadings and the affidavits filed in support of delay condonation applications. 25. The state Government shall identify and fix the liability of the Officers for recovery of cost from them within six weeks from today and shall recover the cost from them within a further period of six weeks. The cost recovered shall be deposited within a week thereafter with the Legal Cell Authority, High Court, Allahabad. 25. The state Government shall identify and fix the liability of the Officers for recovery of cost from them within six weeks from today and shall recover the cost from them within a further period of six weeks. The cost recovered shall be deposited within a week thereafter with the Legal Cell Authority, High Court, Allahabad. Thereafter, within a week a compliance report shall be sent by the State Government to the Registrar General of this Court who shall keep the report on record of these appeals and place it before this Court 26. Let a copy of this order be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. for appropriate action and compliance.