Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed for the payment of dues to the petitioner by the State i.e., the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia, the Single Judge Bench of Manju Rani Chauhan, J., rebuked the State for its lackadaisical attitude in Court proceedings and causing delay.
Background
On the last date, i.e., 22-07-2025, the Standing Counsel for the State had sought time to obtain instructions. However, on the date of the present hearing, the Counsel informed of his inability to assist the Court due to the absence of instructions. He informed that despite intimation to the authority concerned, no instruction had yet been provided to him.
Analysis
The Court remarked that it had experienced that State functionaries often failed to provide instructions to their counsel within due time, even though the specific date was fixed in the matter.
“Such a lackadaisical attitude of the State functionaries not only wastes the precious time of this Court but also raises stumbling blocks in the administration of speedy justice and adversely affects the interest of public at large.”
The Court stated that it was constrained to express its concern over the casual functioning of the State instrumentalities because they were under a special obligation to ensure that they performed their duties with diligence and commitment, and not 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.”
The Court added that if timely decisions were taken by the State functionaries in such petty matters, it might have given a sigh of relief, however, State authorities failed to do so. Thus, it had now become imperative that the State was required to lay down some contours to ensure early disposal of pending matters.
“The present matter is the glaring instance of shirking responsibility as the Standing Counsel has not obtained instructions even after due correspondence.”
However, in the interest of justice, the Court refrained from passing an adverse order, but expected that the competent State authority would introduce required guidelines for disposal of the matters wherein no legal scrutiny by the Courts was required, within the shortest possible period of time. It was also required that necessary instructions were issued to the authorities to provide instructions to the State Counsels within stipulated time to enable them in rendering proper assistance to the Court.
Accordingly, the matter was listed for 20-08-2025. The Court clarified in case the instructions were not received on the next date, the Director of Education (Basic), Uttar Pradesh, and the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, would remain present before the Court. Thus, the Court directed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the Additional Chief Secretary (Basic Education), Uttar Pradesh, and all other authorities concerned, forthwith.
[Sunaina Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine All 5045, decided on 04-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Anurag Shukla
For the respondent: C.S.C., Sanjay Kumar Singh
