- (1.) PERUSED the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State. In the affidavit, it has been stated that now the officers of the State Government have started receiving the representations in view of the order passed by this Court in implementation of the Litigation Policy. It is submitted that till the time of filing of the affidavit various departments received altogether 214 representations till 30th March, 2012. Relief has been granted in 74 cases; 137 representations have been replied by the competent officer; 21 cases have been found to have become infructuous and in 8 matters relief has been granted as these were the fit cases for granting relief. The department sought extension of time by one month for filing the reply in the cases pending in the High Court. We have also perused the chart annexed with the affidavit as Annexure-C. In column 4 and 5 of Annexure-C it has been mentioned that some of the petitions have already become infructuous. However, it is not clear from the affidavit or Annexure-C that whether the Government Advocate, in these matters, has informed the High Court by special mentioning that these matters have become infructuous so that matter may be decided by the High Court. Keeping a record of infructuous matters with the State Government is only an additional burden upon the Government and that was never the intention of the Litigation Policy or in the order passed by this Court on 23.03.2012. Under the Litigation Policy it is the duty of the State Government to periodically examine and review the cases so as to find out which cases have become infructuous; in which cases because of the subsequent development or the decision of the High Court or the Supreme Court reliefs are required to be granted and in which cases the issue has already been decided by the High Court or the Supreme Court and all these matters are required to be brought to the notice of the Court by special mentioning to the concerned Bench by specific mention that the counsel is reporting about the matters which can be decided without any argument being either infructuous or being covered by the judgment which has attained the finality or which has been accepted by the State Government. So far as filing of reply in all matters by the State Government is concerned, we may mention here that in W.P(PIL) NO.689/2010(Md. Ashique Adamed Vrs. Union of India & Ors.) with two analogous cases, this Court had to pass order imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- in the above three cases and the Government had to pay the cost because of non-filing of the replies. Not only this, but every day this Bench itself is granting time to the Government for filing counter affidavit. As per the report submitted by the Advocate General in other case monitoring the filing of the replies, in more than three thousand cases, replies were not filed by the State Government and it was found in sample test only.
(2.) IN view of the above reason, we direct the State Government to strictly comply with all provisions of the Litigation Policy and we further direct to comply the order dated 23.03.2012 and the State Government may submit the report on or before 30th October, 2012 that from the month of July, 2012 to 30th October, 2012 in how many cases replies have been filed by the various departments of the Government. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that some of the departments of the Government have informed in writing that within the time limit fixed by this Court i.e. 30.04.2012, they have filed replies in all the cases. We are not at present going to have the physical verification to find out the correctness in these reports but we are making it clear that any department if is filing wrong report, the Secretary of the concerned department will be responsible for wrong report because of the reason that even in last two years, in three thousand cases replies have not been filed then it is unbelievable that in all cases which are pending since last 10 to 20 years in the High Court in which no care has been taken, replies have been filed by the department in all the cases. Be that as it may, at the appropriate time we will have this inquiry after getting replies from all the departments in almost all matters so that after keeping a reasonable number of cases pending for filing replies we can sort out that which department is misleading the Court. Put up this case on 01.11.2012. Copy of this order be given to the learned Amicus Curiae.;