LAXMIKANT PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya appearing for the State of J & K states that the counter affidavit has been received and shall be presented today in the Registry. Meghalaya Mr. D.N. Mukharjee appearing for the State of Meghalaya says that the affidavit shall be filed on or before 30.4.1990. Mizoram. Arunachal Pradesh. Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep & West Bengal Dadha - & Nagar Haveli & Daman & Diu. There is no appearance when the matter is called. We take it that the above seven have not complied with the order. Goa - The Office report indicates that the affidavit has already been filed and though there is no appearance by Ms. Subhashini, the affidavit is taken on record and she is directed to file her appearance thin ten days.

(2.) In respect of the defaulting States where there is no appearance, notices be issued to the Welfare Secretary and to appear in person on 2.5.1990 to show cause as to why contempt action shall not be initiated against him. Requirement of personal appearance shall be indicated.

(3.) A petition has been filed by Mr. Ramamurthi, Senior Counsel, bringing to the notice of the Court on behalf of the All India Lawyers Union, Tamilnadu Unit, Madras that when the main judgment was pronounced by this Court in 1984 the statutory law in the field which this Court's judgment kept in view for laying down the procedure was the Gaurdians & Wards Act along with the Children's Act and the various State laws. In the meantime, the Family Courts Act as also the Juvenile Justice Act have come into the field and according to his submissions the legal position as formulated in the main judgment would require suitable touching up with reference to these later Acts. We find force in what he says. The petitioner, Mr. Laxmi Kant Pandey, also supports the stand of Mr. Ramamurthi but states that the matter involves serious attention and application of mind and, therefore, all parties should be heard.