JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—These recall applications have been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 seeking recall of the order dated 19.12.2017. 2. It would be appropriate to have a brief retrospect of the proceedings at this stage. 3. The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging recovery certificate dated 4.7.2017 issued by Chief Development Officer, Bareilly (respondent No. 3) and consequential citation dated 10.7.2015 for recovery of Rs. 57,60,000/- and recovery charges from petitioners. 4. It is contended that a total sum of Rs. 18 lacs was sanctioned and released to petitioners under Vidhayak Nidhi Yojana through District Rural Development Authority, Bareilly. Rs. 12 Lacs were sanctioned in financial year 2002-03 and further a sum of Rs. 6 Lacs in financial year 2003-04. Alleging that the aforesaid amount has been misappropriated, recovery certificate was issued and recovery proceedings have been initiated. 5. While staying impunged recovery certificate and citation when writ petition initially came up before a Division Bench of this Court at the time of admission on 3.8.2015, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, represented through learned Standing counsel, were granted three weeks’ time to file counter-affidavit and notice was also issued to respondent No. 5. Thereafter, this matter was listed on various dates i.e. 18.9.2015, 9.10.2015, 26.10.2015, 23.11.2015, 4.1.2016, 17.2.2016, 3.3.2016, 18.3.2016, 12.4.2016, 13.5.2016 and every time adjourned to enable respondents to file counter-affidavit and interim order was extended but respondents chose not to respond at all. 6. It is in this backdrop when matter came up before Court on 1st December, 2017, following order was passed : “1. Despite time granted on 3.8.2015 and thereafter 7 dates fixed but no counter-affidavit has been filed till date. Let respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 appear before this Court on 19.12.2017 to explain why proceeding for contempt be not initiated against them, by framing charge, for non-compliance of this Court’s order by not filing counter-affidavit and thereafter causing delay in disposal of matter which amounts to contempt. However, in case, counter-affidavit is filed by 15.12.2017 and cost of Rs. 10,000/- is paid to petitioners, then respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 need not appear. 2. List on 19.12.2017. 3. Interim order, granted earlier, shall continue till next date of listing.” 7. Still Respondents showed their audacity and neither filed counter-affidavit nor appeared and order dated 1.12.2017 was defied with impunity. 10,000/- is paid to petitioners, then respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 need not appear. 2. List on 19.12.2017. 3. Interim order, granted earlier, shall continue till next date of listing.” 7. Still Respondents showed their audacity and neither filed counter-affidavit nor appeared and order dated 1.12.2017 was defied with impunity. Again when writ petition came up on 19.12.2017 in Court, noticing this attitude of total inaction apathy and dis-concern with the Court proceedings on the part of respondents, Court had no other alternative but issue warrants to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and passed following orders : 1. On 1.12.2017 we passed following order: “1. Despite time granted on 3.8.2015 and thereafter 7 dates fixed but no counter-affidavit has been filed till date. Let respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 appear before this Court on 19.12.2017 to explain why proceeding for contempt be not initiated against them, by framing charge, for non-compliance of this Court’s order by not filing counter-affidavit and thereafter causing delay in disposal of matter which amounts to contempt. However, in case, counter-affidavit is filed by 15.12.2017 and cost of Rs. 10,000/- is paid to petitioners, then respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 need not appear. 2. List on 19.12.2017. 3. Interim order, granted earlier, shall continue till next date of listing.” 2. Today when the case was taken up, learned counsel appearing for respondents stated that counter-affidavit has already been filed on 21.7.2016, whereupon, we directed the office to restore the same. Office has submitted following report today itself: “In compliance of Hon’ble Court’s order dated 1-12-17 and 19-12-17 the office has found that no Counter-affidavit has been filed till the date as per computer verification. It is requests to put up the case for order/admission.” 3. When confronted, learned Standing Counsel states that no counter-affidavit has been filed, which shows that a wrong statement was made on the part of respondents and amount to misrepresentation. Order dated 1.12.2017 has also not been complied with. 4. In such circumstances, there is no option but to issue non-bailable warrant against respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 ensuring their presence before this Court on 4.1.2018. This warrant shall be executed through Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. Office shall proceed in accordance with law. 5. List on 4.1.2018. 6. Interim order to continue till further orders. 8. 4. In such circumstances, there is no option but to issue non-bailable warrant against respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 ensuring their presence before this Court on 4.1.2018. This warrant shall be executed through Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. Office shall proceed in accordance with law. 5. List on 4.1.2018. 6. Interim order to continue till further orders. 8. Perusal of the aforesaid order would further show that there was an attempt on the part of respondents’ counsel to shield respondents by stating that counter-affidavit was already filed. When statement was found untrue, we issued warrants. Warrants were directed to be executed through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. 9. Registry of this Court forwarded warrants to Senior Superintendent of Police and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly for execution and compliance report. These warrants were forwarded by Registry by Speed Post dated 22.12.2017. FAX massage was also forwarded to the said authorities. However, neither any report of compliance was submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police nor we received any information from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. 10. On 2.1.2018, these applications requesting for recall of order dated 19.12.2017 were filed by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 which came up before Court on 4.1.2018 when matter was already listed. 11. On 4.1.2018, Sri M.P. Agarwal, Finance Secretary Government of U.P., Lucknow, Sri R. Vikram Singh, District Magistrate, Bareilly and Sri Satyendra Kumar, Chief Development Officer, Bareilly appeared and a letter dated 3.1.2018 of Senior Superintendent of Police was also placed before us which was addressed to Deputy Registrar and stated that warrants for execution were handed over to In-charge Inspector, P.S. Kotwali, Bareilly, who submitted report on 3.1.2018 that District Magistrate, Bareilly and C.D.O. had already gone to Allahabad. 12. Report dated 3.1.2018 of Sri Gitesh Kapil, In-charge Inspector, P.S. Kotwali, addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly is also placed before us which shows that Inspector concerned visited residences of two Officers i.e. District Magistrate, Bareilly and Chief Development Officer, Bareilly on 2.1.2018 at 10.05 p.m. It does not show when letter of Deputy Registrar alongwith order of this Court was received in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police and why they took 10 days time for execution of warrants when besides speed post, letter and order was sent through FAX to S.S.P., Bareilly on 22nd December, 2017 itself. 13. 13. We did not receive any report from Chief Judicial Magistrates, concern and find it difficult as to how they could disregard compliance of Court’s order when specifically directed to execute warrants. In this regard, we have already called the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrates to submit report and explanation vide order dated 4.1.2018 passed separately. 14. Now, coming to recall applications, we fail to understand as to how these applications could be filed on 2.1.2018 when order was passed on 19th December, 2017 in the presence of learned Standing counsel, who is supposed to communicate the said order on that very date. In fact, communication of order dated 19.12.2017 is admitted in the affidavit of Sri R. Vikram Singh, District Magistrate, Bareilly wherein he has said in para 5 as is under : “That immediately when the communication dated 19.12.2017 was received from Standing Counsel communicating the order the entire matter was taken up at departmental leveal which reveals that Sri Anuj Kumar has already been deputed to file the counter-affidavit.” 15. Obviously, date and time of communication of order dated 19.12.2017 has not been disclosed by learned Standing counsel. 16. This Court functioned up to 22nd December, 2017 and thereafter, re-opened after winter vacation on 2.1.2018. The application for recall could have been filed between 20.12.2017 to 22.12.2017 but it was not done. 17. We enquired from learned Standing counsel and also the officers who appear in person as to how they could appear at Allahabad when non bailable warrants were operating, without seeking bail from Court of Magistrate concern and would it not amount to a deliberate and intentional defiance and disregard of order dated 19.12.2017 for which they could give no reply whatsoever. 18. The above facts also show that all the authorities including Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, In-charge Inspector Kotwali, Bareilly and also Chief Judicial Magistrates acted in collusion so as not to execute Non Bailable Warrants issued by this Court and proceeded in a manner to frustrate the aforesaid order. Apparent audacity on part of Chief Judicial Magistrates by not taking any action for compliance of Court’s order dated 19.12.2017 and also by not submitting any report, needs to be view strictly and we have no hesitation in placing on record our strong condemnation and strictures against the said officers. 19. Apparent audacity on part of Chief Judicial Magistrates by not taking any action for compliance of Court’s order dated 19.12.2017 and also by not submitting any report, needs to be view strictly and we have no hesitation in placing on record our strong condemnation and strictures against the said officers. 19. Same is the position with respect to Senior Superintendent of Police and also In-charge Inspector Kotwali, Bareilly, who have also acted in most careless and negligent manner and have aided and assisted respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in getting order dated 19.12.2017 to remain un-complied so far as execution of warrants is concerned. 20. The three Officers present before us are members of Indian Administrative Service. Whenever posted in a District as District Magistrate, the Officer is also In-charge of District for criminal administration. Hence, these officers are supposed to be aware of relevant provisions in regard to criminal procedure still they have disregarded warrants issued by this Court and have failed to observe due procedure. 21. The known procedure whenever a warrant issued, is that the person against whom warrant is issued, must appear before Magistrate,, seek bail and furnish security for compliance of directions for which warrant has been issued. Such person cannot defy execution of warrant and without seeking bail before Magistrate cannot appear before this Court for the reason that a person, who has defied orders of Court stands in contempt and unless purges, has no right to be heard. The only course open is either to make application for recall or stay of warrant by concerned Court, well before the date fixed but once it is not done or that warrant is not stayed or revoked, consequences of issue of warrant have to follow and one must seek bail before Magistrate concerned. This having not been done in the case in hand, these applicants are clearly guilty of acting in defiance of the order of this Court. 22. Chief Development Officer is a newly appointed Officer of Indian Administrative Service, therefore, we may have a lenient view in regard to him for lack of experience but find no valid explanation on the part of other two Officers, namely, Sri R. Vikram Singh, District Magistrate, Bareilly and Sri M.P. Agarwal, Finance Secretary Government of U.P., Lucknow. 23. 22. Chief Development Officer is a newly appointed Officer of Indian Administrative Service, therefore, we may have a lenient view in regard to him for lack of experience but find no valid explanation on the part of other two Officers, namely, Sri R. Vikram Singh, District Magistrate, Bareilly and Sri M.P. Agarwal, Finance Secretary Government of U.P., Lucknow. 23. With regard to failure on the part of respondents in filing counter-affidavit it is stated in affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 that one Anuj Kumar son of Lal Bahadur, the then Block Development Officer near Faridpur was deputed to file counter-affidavit vide letter dated 20.6.2016. Counter-affidavit was also got prepared in July, 2016 but could not be filed by him for the reasons known to him. In these circumstances, respondent No. 3 has placed one Santosh Krishna Ashudhir, Junior Accounts Clerk/Litigation Clerk District Rural Development Authority Bareilly under suspension and recommendation has been made to Principal Secretary, Rural Development for suspension and disciplinary inquiry against Sri Anuj Kumar the then Block Development Officer. Evidently, for delay in disposal of the cases, substantial responsibility we find on the part of State and its officials. This is one of the biggest hurdle in expeditious disposal of cases. This is one of the major reason causing huge pendency of cases in Courts. On the other hand, we also find that on public front representative of people and political executives of Government try to depict as if they are taking all possible steps for speedy justice, but in practice, situation is worse and responsible authorities are totally dispassionate and disinterested in taking timely action on their part. They fail to ensure compliance of Court’s order so that cases may be decided at an early date. 24. Looking to the facts as discussed above, it cannot be said that respondents have acted as responsible Senior Officers to give due honour and authority to orders of this Court. 25. Considering apology they have tendered in Court on 4.1.2018 and assurance that in future such negligence shall not be repeated, we are dropping further proceedings in the matter and recall warrants issued against respondents. 26. 25. Considering apology they have tendered in Court on 4.1.2018 and assurance that in future such negligence shall not be repeated, we are dropping further proceedings in the matter and recall warrants issued against respondents. 26. However, we find it appropriate to direct Registry to forward a copy of this order to Chief Secretary Uttar Pradesh Lucknow for his information and issue necessary instructions to all authorities in the State to remain utmost careful and alert in Court cases and show timely response so that cases do not linger in the Courts for inaction or lack of response on the part of officials of Government. It is moreso important for the reason that State and its authorities are the biggest litigant so far as the High Court is concerned and except a few, in all the matters State is either petitioner or respondents. 27. The applications stands disposed of accordingly.