Failure Of State Authorities To Take Timely Decisions Piles Up Case Pendency : Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan was dealing with a writ petition filed by one Sunaina concerning payment from the education department.

On the previous hearing (July 22), time was granted to the Standing Counsel to obtain instructions, and the matter was posted for August 4. The order dated July 22 had recorded that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia, had already forwarded the proposal for payment, which was pending before the respondent no.2.

However, when the matter was taken up on August 4, the Standing Counsel expressed his inability to assist the Court. He stated that despite the intimation, no instructions had been provided to him by the authority concerned.

Taking exception to this and observing a pattern in this regard, the Court remarked thus:

"(it has been) experienced that State functionaries often fail to provide instructions to their Counsel within due time, even though the specific date is fixed in the matter".

The Court noted that such a 'lackadaisical' attitude of the State functionaries not only wastes the precious time of this Court but also raises 'stumbling blocks' in the administration of speedy justice and adversely affects the interest of the public at large.

The single judge went on to underscore the obligation of the State to act diligently, stating:

"I am constrained to express my concern over the casual functioning of the State instrumentalities, because they are under a special obligation to ensure that they will perform their duties with diligence and commitment and not to become the cause of overburdening the courts due to their lethargic approach in taking decisions in trivial matters. Failure of State authorities in timely taking decision piles up the pendency of cases before the courts".

Against this backdrop, while the Court called the present matter a 'glaring instance of shirking responsibility', it refrained from passing an adverse order.

Instead, the single judge expected the competent authority to introduce required guidelines for disposing of such matters that do not require legal scrutiny by the Courts and issue necessary instructions to ensure that Standing Counsel receives instructions within stipulated timeframes.

The Court added that timely decisions by State functionaries in 'petty matters' would give a sigh of relief. It thus found it imperative for the State to lay down some contours so as to ensure early disposal of pending matters.

Posting the matter for August 20, the Court has made it clear that if instructions are not received by the next date, the Director of Education (Basic), UP and the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, shall remain present in person.