GULSHAN S O KALLU HIRA LAL BISHAMBER SINGH ZILA PARISHAD MORADABAD Vs. ZILA PARISHAD ETAWAH UTTAR PRADESH:ZILA PARISHAD KANPUR:ZILA PARISHAD MUKEHYA ADHIKARI MUZAFFAR NAGAR STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH:LALOO RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1900 of 1981 came up for hearing before us on 27th April. 1981, we made an order directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to inform the Court as to how many centres have been set up in Etawah district under the Model Scheme for Carcass Utilisation at village panchayat level Annexure II to the affidavit in reply filed by Sh. Ram Naresh Pande, where they are situated what are the activities which are being carried out by these centres and what is the extent of such activities and how many persons are taking advantage of these centres. It is surprising that though a period of more than three months has elapsed, the State of Uttar Pradesh has not supplied this information to us. We fail to understand this inaction on the part of the State Government in complying with the order of the Court. The only inference which we can draw from the failure of the State Government to give us this information is that the Model Scheme for Carcass Utilisation at Village Panchayat Level has remained merely a paper scheme and it has not been implemented in the Etawah district. If this be the correct situation, it is a matter of regret that the Model Scheme for Carcass Utilisation at Village Panchayat Level should not have been implemented. We fail to appreciate why any scheme of social welfare should be put forward by a Government unless it is intended to be implemented, because otherwise an impression may be created in the public mind that the scheme is put forward only in order to beguile the masses and that would be injurious to democracy and the rule of law. We would how-ever give one more opportunity to the State Govt. to supply us this information before we draw any adverse inference against the State Government and we would therefore direct that this information should be given to the Court in an affidavit to be filed by the appropriate officer on or before 17th August, 1981. The information should also contain particulars in regard to any Skin flayers Co-operative Societies set up or organised under the Model Scheme for carcass Utilisation at Village Panchayat Level. We would direct that similar information in regard to Kanpur. Hardoi and Muzaffarnagar districts should also be supplied to the Court on or before 21st August. 1981

(2.) We also directed the State Government by our order dated 27th April, 1981 to inform us as to how many co-operative societies have been formed for the purpose of "Charma Shodhan". what are the categories of persons who are members of such co-operative societies and whether any persons who were originally carrying on business of skinning dead animals are members of such co-operative societies. Pursuant to this direction given by us. Ram Naresh Pande has filed an affidavit giving particulars in regard to twelve Co-operative Societies-Institutions working under the Khadi and Village Industries Board, 'Uttar Pradesh which are engaged in different aspects of leather industry. Though it is not so specifically stated we may take it that these are the co-operative societies formed for the purpose of charma shodhan. But the affidavit of Ram Naresh Pande does not state as to whether any skinning centres have been set up by the State Government or by the co-operative societies/institutions under the Khadi and Village Industries Board: what are the categories of persons who are members of these co-operative societies/institutions and whether any persons who were originally carrying on business of skinning dead animals are members of such co-operative societies or institutions. The State Government has failed to supply this information to us despite the specific direction contained in our Order dated 27th April, 1981. We would however give one more opportunity to the State Government to comply with this direction and we would therefore direct the State Government to supply this information to the Court on or before 17th August. 1981.

(3.) We also gave a direction in our Order dated 27th April, 1981 that the Zila Parishad of Etawah should inform the Court whether at the time of auction or subsequently any condition was imposed on the contractor with regard to the persons he must employ for the purpose of actually carrying out the skinning of carcasses and whether any minimum rates of wages payable by him to such persons are fixed and if not so fixed, why has that not been done. The Zila Parishad of Etawah has also failed to supply this information to the Court even though a period of more than three months has passed since the making of our Order. It is a matter of regret that local self Governing Authorities like Zila Parishad should not bother to carry out the order of this Court and should not even show the ordinary courtesy of expressing regret to the Court for not complying with the Order. The State Government and the local self governing authorities should in fact set the standard for other litigants in the matter of compliance with the orders of the Court, because otherwise the rule of law will remain merely a meaningless phrase and an empty formality. We would however give one more opportunity to the Zila Parishad of Etawah and direct that the Zila Parishad Etawah should supply the required information to the Court on or before 17th August, 1981. The Zila Parishad Etawah will also inform the Court since how many years it has been giving this work on contract by holding auction and produce the contracts, if any, for the earlier years for perusal by the Court.