Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs Akbal Singh on 18 July, 2023
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Anish Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:142073-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 402 of 2023
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Respondent :- Akbal Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- Brijesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Yogesh Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State-Appellants and Shri Yogesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners.
2. This State Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.08.2021. Apart from the inordinate delay in filing the instant appeal, another startling fact, which is to be noted is that the appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein all issues pertaining to the prayer for grant of retiral benefits to the writ petitioner, have been kept open while issuing directions to take decision in the matter after due examination of the claim, in accordance with law.
3. A strong exception has been taken by us in the order dated 31.05.2023, asking the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Ayush (Ayush Anubhag-1), Lucknow to file his personal affidavit before us to explain as to in what circumstances, the instant appeal has been filed. In the personal affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, namely the Officer posted as Principal Secretary, Ministry of Ayush (Ayush Anubhag-1), Lucknow, it has been brought on record that in compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Health Services, Lucknow was required to take a decision but the matter has been kept pending and letter was sent to the State Government seeking guidelines in the matter.
4. A Contempt Petition No.363 of 2022 (Akbal Singh Vs. Dr. S.N.Singh, Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, U.P., has been filed by the writ-petitioner/respondent herein, wherein an order was passed granting one more opportunity to the respondents to comply with the order of the Writ Court. It is further brought on record that the representation filed by the writ petitioner has been rejected on 30.06.2023, after filing the instant appeal.
5. A detailed inquiry has been conducted to find out as to how the petitioner's matter had been dealt with at the Directorate level and it was found that an embarrassing situation has been created in the Department on account of pendency of the matter. It is then to be submitted that the total number of 46 writ petitions relating to the matter, subject matter of dispute herein have been filed before this Court and the Contempt Petition has been filed for non-compliance of the order of the Writ Court. The legal opinion sought by the State Government from the Law Department was in the bunch, wherein the opinion was given to file Appeal. The instant appeal was part of the same bunch and hence has been instituted by the Department. It is, thus, sought to be submitted that a mistake has been committed on the part of the Department and such mistake will not be repeated in future. However, a decision has been taken by the Department to withdraw the instant Appeal.
4. Taking note of the above submissions in the personal affidavit of the Principal Secretary concerned, we are required to note that several orders were passed by us in similar situation requiring the State-Appellants to explain as to why Special Appeals are being filed against such orders, where no prejudice is said to have been caused to the State, forcing writ petitioner-respondent to engage counsel and adding to the volume of humongous litigation before this Court. On each occasion, when explanation was called, it is submitted that the mistake was committed on the part of the Department. In any case, since the State Government has decided to withdraw the instant appeal, we dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with a warning to the State-Appellant not to repeat such mistake in future.
5. We also find proper to issue a direction to the State Government-petitioner to finalize the litigation policy guiding the institution of the litigation on the part of the State Government, inasmuch as, the State cannot act as private litigant, as the institution of the cases by the Departments of the State Government, result in expenditure of public money, which is tax payer's money.
6. With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order Date :- 18.7.2023
SFH
