- (1.) PURSUANT to our order dated 11. 3. 2008 following are present and have filed their personal affidavits through the Chief Standing Counsel: (1) Sri Prashant Kumar Misra, Chief Secretary, Government of U. P, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow. (2) Sri Jagan Mathews, Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply De partment, Government of U. P, Lucknow. (3) Sri J. N. Chamber, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govern- (4) Sri S. I Lucknow. I. A. Abdi, Principal Secretary, Law, Government of U. P, (5) Sri Vikram Singh, D. G. P. , U. P, Lucknow. (6) Sri. Navtej Singh, Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur.
(2.) BESIDES, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U. P, Lucknow, who is also present in the Court, has filed an applica tion being Application No. 65871 of 2008 seeking recall of our order dated 11. 3. 2008 in so far as it has required personal appearance of the aforesaid officers. This application is supported by an affidavit. He has also filed a supplementary affidavit on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, i. e. , Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U. P, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "mandi Parishad" ). We have heard Sri C. L. Pandey, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners, Sri Jyotindra Mishra, Advocate General as sisted by Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the aforesaid officers as well as the respondent-State of U. P. and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan, Advocate for Mandi Parishad. Normally for disposal of a writ petition this Court does not require presence of the parties to the litigation and more so, the officers of the State Government, but at times, when the Court found their presence necessary to explain certain aspects, the persons and authorities are required to appear before the Court. We are aware that calling such senior officers of the State Government like, Chief Secretary and some of the Principal Secretaries of various departments may cause, at times, some hindrance in the regular functioning of the Government, therefore, normally the Court refrain from directing such senior officers to be per sonally present before the Court but when the Court is faced with a situation where the very system of administration of justice is sought to be made ineffec tive due to sheer indifference and inaction on the part of the State Government, and, particularly, the authorities who are supposed to execute and implement the orders and directions of the Court, then this Court will be failing in its duty if such authorities are not required to explain such conduct of theirs.
(3.) THIS case is an example of such a situation. Despite of a mandate issued by this Court to all the aforesaid officers to execute and implement certain direc tions of this Court, for the last almost five years, the said directions have not been carried out and there is no explanation, whatsoever, on the part of the said au thorities before the Court. The situation is really unfortunate and more unfortunate is the conduct of such authorities who have allowed it to happen. To understand the problem and issue it would be appropriate to remind of certain relevant facts giving rise to the present dispute.;