Court orders not followed unless officials summoned, observes HC

Hindustan Times

7 days ago

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has observed that court orders are not being followed even after issuance of contempt notice unless the personal appearance of the officer concerned is ordered by the court. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court made the observation on July 21. (FILE PHOTO)
A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh made this observation on July 21. The court was hearing a special appeal filed by the State of U.P. through its additional chief secretary, the department of basic education and others against the respondent Jai Singh and others.
'The attitude of the officers, in ignoring the orders passed by the court till such time that notices in the contempt petition are issued, cannot be approved. On many occasions, despite issuance of notices in contempt petition, no action is taken and it is only when the directions are issued for personal presence that for the first time, the officers care for the orders passed by the Court. There are hardly any appeals which are filed without application seeking condonation of delay, which conduct on part of the appellants cannot be appreciated/encouraged,' the high court observed.
The court was dealing with a special appeal filed by the state against the order of a single-judge whereby the state was directed to permit respondents to continue in employment in the department along with payment of arrears of salary. The state filed an appeal against the said order with a delay of 345 days.
In the application for condonation of delay, administrative reasons were given for justifying filing the appeal late. It was requested that the delay was unintentional, genuine and bona fide. The respondent, in his objection, pleaded that the story by the state was concocted. It was argued that cognizance of the order was taken for the first time after six months.
The court observed that though after the judgment was passed, the state claimed to have sought opinions of standing counsel and chief standing counsel, no such opinion or request seeking opinion was placed on record. It also observed that the delay in seeking and providing opinions and the need for second opinions was not explained.
The court said, 'In the entire affidavit, there is no intention to indicate the sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay, only formality of indicating dates has been fulfilled and thereafter, sermons on the working of the Government have been indicated that it took time in completing the administrative formalities by following certain norms and procedure of 'disciplined and systematic performance of official functions' and that among the several factors on which depend the time consumed in process, there are 'certain unavoidable and unspoken circumstances.'
The court observed that the limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act was being taken for granted by the State and the appellants approached the high court only after notices were issued in the contempt petition filed by the respondents. Declining to accept the delay condonation application, the court dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.