In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the Uttar Pradesh State authorities for their casual approach in filing affidavits and responding to court orders. The case, Smt. Indrawati Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P., brought to light significant issues of administrative inefficiency and legal negligence. The Court, led by Justice Piyush Agrawal, made sharp remarks on the lack of diligence in the preparation of documents submitted by the District Magistrate of Bhadohi.
Background of the Case
The case, Smt. Indrawati Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others (Writ – C No. 829 of 2022), involved a petition filed by Smt. Indrawati Devi and two other individuals against the State of Uttar Pradesh, seeking reliefs related to administrative inaction by the State authorities. The case brought forth concerns regarding the delays in filing responses by the authorities and the nature of affidavits submitted by the District Magistrate of Bhadohi, Vishal Singh. The petitioners were represented by advocates Rajeev Kumar Singh and Ravikar Pandey, while the State’s representation was handled by the Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.).
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue in this case revolved around the failure of the District Magistrate of Bhadohi to file a counter affidavit within the time directed by the Court. Furthermore, the quality of the affidavit, once submitted, raised serious concerns about the working of the State’s legal machinery, particularly the lack of proper communication of the Court’s orders to the concerned authorities.
The High Court was particularly troubled by the manner in which the affidavit was prepared and filed. There was confusion regarding the identity of the deponent, as the affidavit mentioned both the ‘District Magistrate, Bhadohi’ and the ‘Commissioner of Police, Lucknow,’ suggesting carelessness in drafting. Additionally, there was no proper documentation or evidence of communications that the deponent claimed to have received, further indicating the negligent approach of the authorities.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Court made sharp observations about the lackadaisical attitude of the State authorities and their counsels. Justice Agrawal noted that affidavits were filed “in a very casual and lethargic manner, even without proper drafting or reading before signing.” He expressed astonishment at the inconsistencies and vague references within the affidavit, especially in relation to the failure to follow earlier court orders.
In paragraph 12 of the judgment, the Court highlighted the authorities’ lack of seriousness in complying with judicial directions, stating:
“The affidavits have been filed before this Court in a very casual and lethargic manner even without proper drafting / reading before signing.”
Justice Agrawal further criticized the State’s counsels, stating that despite granting them multiple opportunities to rectify their mistakes, they failed to meet the standards of proper legal procedure.
Consequences and Future Action
As a result of this persistent issue, the Court directed that the matter be referred to the Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh and the Principal Secretary (Law) and Legal Remembrancer (L.R.) to investigate and take cognizance of the situation. The Court also referred to an earlier judgment in Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. (Writ C No. 19202 of 2024), where similar concerns were raised, and steps were ordered to improve the quality of legal representation for the State before the High Court.
The Court ordered the Registrar General to forward the judgment to the concerned authorities for further action and listed the matter for a subsequent hearing on November 4, 2024.
Case Details:
– Case Title: Smt. Indrawati Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
– Case Number: Writ – C No. 829 of 2022
– Bench: Justice Piyush Agrawal
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Rajeev Kumar Singh, Ravikar Pandey
– Respondent’s Counsel: Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.)
