Allahabad High Court criticized UP officers for ignoring court orders until contempt notices or personal appearances are ordered. The Court dismissed a delayed state appeal, calling it a result of administrative negligence.
Prayagraj: On Monday, the Allahabad High Court strongly criticised the Uttar Pradesh government officers for their casual attitude towards court orders. The Court noted that the officers only take action when they are personally summoned, and often ignore directions until contempt notices are issued.
This observation came from a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh while hearing an appeal. The case related to a service matter where the State had filed an appeal after a delay of 345 days.
The State had requested condonation of the delay, claiming that the delay was due to administrative procedures.
However, the Court found the explanation unsatisfactory and pointed out the systemic failures that led to the delay.
The Bench said,
“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 Court analysed the timeline of events following the order passed by a single-judge in April 2023. It noted that the Standing Counsel had given a legal opinion within a month of the order. Yet, the appeal was filed nearly a year later.
ALSO READ: Guidelines for Prosecuting Guardians of Minors Who Drive Without Licence Issued by HC
The High Court detailed this delay, stating:
“On receipt of the opinion, claim has been made that on 11.10.2023, the State Government directed to make available the proposal of special appeal along with the legal opinion of the Chief Standing Counsel. As to why despite the opinion dated 16.05.2023 further opinion was required, that too after passage of over five months, has not been indicated and even that opinion of the Chief Standing Counsel was given after a passage of over one month, on 18.11.2023. Even when once the opinion dated 18.11.2023 was received, again after passage of two months on 23.01.2024, the matter was referred to the Director, Basic Education and, with leisure, the permission was granted on 13.03.2024. Even after grant of permission on 13.03.2024, the appeal has been filed on 01.05.2024.”
The Bench said that the entire timeline shows a “lackadaisical attitude” towards compliance with the Court’s directions.
The government had explained that the delay was due to the formal procedure followed after receiving the judgment. Orders and legal opinions are generally forwarded to the concerned government department. However, the Court found this process completely broken.
The Court observed,
“The indications made that on receipt of the judgment from the respondents, the ball was set rolling for seeking opinion, clearly reflects a total collapse of the system which, it is claimed, is in place,”
The Court also pointed out that the affidavit submitted to explain the delay did not genuinely attempt to show any valid reason. It only listed a timeline without explaining the delay in a meaningful way.
The Bench remarked,
“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’,”
Importantly, the High Court noted that real action only began after the respondents, in whose favour the single-judge had ruled, filed a contempt petition and notices were issued to the officers.
The Court finally dismissed the State’s appeal, holding that it was filed too late and was barred by the limitation period.
Advocate Anand Kumar Singh appeared for the State, while Advocates Girish Chandra Verma, Vinay Kumar Verma, and Raman Kumar represented the respondents.
Case Title:
State of UP v Jai Singh and Others
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Govt Officers
