Allahabad High Court has expressed serious concern over the casual and negligent functioning of State authorities, particularly in their failure to provide timely instructions to government counsel. The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by one Sunaina, relating to a pending payment matter with the Education Department.
The matter had earlier come up on July 22, when the Court granted time to the Standing Counsel to obtain necessary instructions from the concerned authority. The Court had recorded that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), Ballia, had already forwarded the payment proposal, which remained pending before Respondent No. 2. The case was then adjourned to August 4.
However, on August 4, when the matter was taken up, the Standing Counsel informed the Bench that he was unable to assist the Court as no instructions had been received from the concerned authority despite prior intimation.
Taking strong exception to this inaction, Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed:
"It has been experienced that State functionaries often fail to provide instructions to their Counsel within due time, even though the specific date is fixed in the matter."
The Court criticised the ‘lackadaisical’ attitude of State officials, noting that such conduct not only results in the wastage of judicial time but also creates unnecessary hurdles in the delivery of timely justice, adversely affecting public interest.
Underscoring the responsibility of the State, the Court observed:
"I am constrained to express my concern over the casual functioning of the State instrumentalities, because they are under a special obligation to ensure that they will perform their duties with diligence and commitment and not to become the cause of overburdening the courts due to their lethargic approach in taking decisions in trivial matters. Failure of State authorities in timely taking decision piles up the pendency of cases before the courts."
Labeling the case a "glaring instance of shirking responsibility," the Court, however, refrained from passing an adverse order at this stage. Instead, it urged the competent authorities to issue necessary guidelines for prompt disposal of routine matters that do not require judicial intervention, and to ensure that Standing Counsel receive timely instructions for effective court representation.
The Court emphasised that the timely resolution of such "petty matters" would significantly reduce the burden on the judiciary and provide relief to litigants. In this regard, the Court found it "imperative for the State to lay down some contours so as to ensure early disposal of pending matters."
Before adjourning the matter to August 20, the Court issued a clear directive: if instructions are not received by the next date, both the Director of Education (Basic), Uttar Pradesh, and the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, shall appear before the Court in person.
Picture Source :
