- (1.) In this case, notice of recovery dated 30.07.2015 issued by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Shamli was challenged on the ground that no mining activities has been undertaken by respondents, as alleged, and further that matter of digging ordinary soil upto two meters depth does not come within the purview of mining in the light of Government Order dated 24.12.2012, as held by this Court in Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 6 ADJ 475.
(2.) Respondents were granted time to file counter affidavit by order dated 07.01.2016 and interim order was passed in favour of petitioners. No reply was filed, therefore time was again granted on 31.03.2016, 06.05.2016, 18.08.2017, 08.09.2017 and 19.09.2017. When the matter came up before Court on 06.10.2017 we found that twice it was stated on behalf of respondents that counter affidavit is under preparation and matter was got adjourned on 08.09.2017 and 19.09.2017 but no counter affidavit was filed which demonstrates that statement made on both the earlier occasions was incorrect.
(3.) In view thereof, we called upon respondents-1 and 2 to appear in Court to explain, why action be not taken for not filing counter affidavit and getting a wrong statement made in the Court. Thereafter learned Standing Counsel stated that his file itself was not received from Office, hence he was not in a position to assist Court. Since this problem we were facing almost everyday in the last few months, we had no option but to pass following order on 06.10.2017: "1. Twice case was adjourned on statement made by learned Standing Counsel that counter affidavit is under preparation on 8th September, 2017 and 19th September, 2017, though no affidavit has been filed till date. Earlier both statements made by learned Standing Counsel were false. In these circumstances, we have no option but to direct respondent nos. 1 and 2 to appear before Court to explain as to why action against them be not taken. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the State further stated that his record is not available so he is not in a position even to assist Court. Let Legal Remembrancer appear in person and explain as to why proper arrangement has not been made to represent State Authorities in the Court for assistance and if capable and suitable State Law Officers are not being appointed why Court should not proceed to decide matter ex parte after observing about non assistance on behalf of State and its authorities and why heavy cost should not be imposed for wasting Court's time by not providing assistance to the Court. 3. List this matter on 24th October, 2017, by which date concerned officials shall appear in person before Court. 4. In the above facts and circumstances of case, we also find no reason to confine interim order for a limited period and thus we extend interim order until further orders.";