1. The order impugned in the writ petition is dated 4th October, 1994 passed by District Judge, Agra. While allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the authority below, District Judge directed that the authority shall have a glance of Supreme Court judgment and make it a part of record and thereafter pass order in the light of directions given by the Apex Court.
2. This Court really failed to understand what was the occasion for the petitioners to file the present writ petition instead of obtaining copy of the order of Supreme Court, which they claim to have been passed by it. The learned Standing Counsel in fact could not explain any reason or justification in filing this case.
3. Faced with these circumstances, I intend to place on record my deep dissatisfaction in the manner, the officials in Law Department are functioning. Why this case was advised to be filed must have been scrutinised by Law Department. It appears they have passed order mechanically. Error of judgment can be excused but surrender or non-application of mind cannot. The Judicial Officers are sent on deputation to the Law Department of Government with an objective that they constitute an independent cadre, hence without being influenced by executive, shall advise it impartially, objectively and fairly. If this does not happen, the very purpose in sending Judicial Officers on deputation with Government will frustrate. On the one hand from regular work these officers are taken out and sent on deputation to work like a Consultant but if their advise and opinion is not independent and impartial, it shall loose its gravity and frustrate the purpose. The officials in the Law Department, therefore, have to work with great caution, care and independence.
4. It is a matter of common knowledge that before the superior courts, like High Court and Supreme Court, State (Provincial or Central, as the case may be) is the biggest litigant. In fact in writ jurisdiction, almost in all the cases, State, in one or other manner, is a party.
5. This Court is presently reeling under huge pendency of more than 9.5 lacs cases (more than 7 lacs at Allahabad and more than 2.5 lacs at Lucknow). Innumerable seminars, conferences, meetings, discussions etc. are being held at every level to find out ways and means for expeditious disposal of matters so that access to justice should be quicker and prompt to the people. All out attempt is being made for quick justice since justice delayed is justice denied. We are trying our best so that litigating people should get decision/adjudication of their rights within a reasonable time. To achieve this goal, role of Executive cannot be ignored. On the contrary, being one of the biggest litigant, the Executive has all the more responsibility to behave in a reasonable manner which is consistent with law so that occasion to approach Courts for protection of rights by people may be minimised.
6. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, writ petitions are mostly filed when the Executive behave arbitrarily, oppressively and in defiance of statutes, Constitutional and otherwise. When a common man comes to Court against such action of Executive, it cannot be said that he is unnecessarily burdening the system of administration of justice. The situation, however would be much different when a Court of law has given a verdict. Once such a decision is taken, unless a glaring legal error or otherwise travesty of justice has resulted from such a decision, atleast the State must be slow in continuing to engage in further litigation by filing a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 and to take up the matter further.
7. I am not suggesting that the judgment of subordinate Courts should not be challenged at all but my endeavour is to stress upon a more serious scrutiny at the level of department itself, whether there is such a glaring error in the judgment so as to take up the matter further or not. Most of the departments of Government have their own legal experts and consultants. At the Secretariat level a full fledged cadre of such Experts is available in Law Department. I am told that presently the office of Legal Remembrancer and Secretary, Law, includes more than two dozens of Judicial Officers at the level of Deputy Legal Remembrancer, Joint Legal Remembrancer and Additional Legal Remembrancer headed by a Legal Remembrancer. They are the officers belong to Judicial Service of State, whereof senior posts like Joint Legal Remembrancer, Additional Legal Remembrancer and Legal Remembrancer are manned by members of Higher Judicial Service. Heavy responsibility lie upon these officers also to analyse the judgments in the context of facts, statutory provisions and decisions of High Courts and Supreme Court on the subject and thereafter to find out whether there is any such glaring error which justify further litigation in High Court or not. The approach should not be one to grant approval automatically and mechanically. There must be and there has to be a serious application of mind at the level of authorities who are responsible to tender legal opinion to take up the matters further.
8. I may point out at this stage that in case of any doubt or clarity on the subject, the officers of Government including those from Law Department can also seek opinion from Law Officers of State who represent them in High Court including the learned Advocate General and Additional Advocate Generals. It would not be out of place to mention that number of State Law Officers empanelled by State in the High Court, i.e., at Lucknow and Allahabad consists of more than a few hundreds Advocates.
9. Such a huge team of Law Officers is headed by learned Advocate General. Monthly revenue towards fees of this magnitude of State Law Officers, only in the High Court is quite heavy. This Court have experienced that not only this but almost in a routine manner, State is also engaging several private counsels as Special Counsel, paying them a huge amount. With this quantum of assistance of legal brains, still the Government, if not able to control frivolous and vexatious cases, it is a matter, not only of serious concern, but condemnation. There is something basically wrong which needs be analysed and rectified at the earliest. The State cannot forget that being custodian of public funds which belong to tax payers (people of this State), it cannot plunder with it in such reckless and negligent manner. Everybody has to be accountable for spending even a single shell from public funds. Anybody responsible for wastage must be required to explain and bear it. Public funds cannot be allowed to be thrown and misused in such a manner.
10. Time and again, the Apex Court and this Court have repeatedly said that State should refrain from filing frivolous petitions, wasting precious time of Court so that other substantial matters may be taken up and decided.
11. Recently in Writ Petition No. 474 (SB) of 2011 (State of U.P and another Vs. Brij Bhushan Sharma), decided on 17.03.2011, a Division Bench, has deprecated such practice of State of filing frivolous writ petitions :
"We deprecate such practice on the part of the State. . . ."
12. In another matter, i.e., Writ Petition No. 473 (SB) of 2011 (State of U.P through Principal Secretary Appointment Deparmtnet Vs. Vishnu Swarup Mishra and another), decided on 17.03.2011 while dismissing writ petition, the Court said:
"We direct the Chief Secretary of State to formulate a policy in the matter of filing such petitions which are causing unnecessary burden for disposal, on this Court."
13. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- against the petitioners.
Order Date :- 3.9.2011 KA