UMAR MAMAD SUMRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Jagdish Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners under the authority of Shri Y.S. Lakhani, Shri L.R. Pujari, learned AGP for the respondent -State.

(2.) PRESENT is a petition wherein, the petitioners are seeking certain benefits from the State Government on the ground that they would be entitled to return fare from the State Government in case they were required to carry water from the source to the thirsty villages. This petition came to be filed in the year 1989. Fortunately, it came up for hearing on 23.3.2000, the petition was allowed on the same day and a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in view of the statement of fact made by the petitioners that the return fair was paid to the petitioners no. 1 and 3. After the disposal of the matter, it appears that a final order came to be passed on 6.7.2000. The petitioners thereafter filed Misc. Civil Application No. 1427 of 2005 for restoration of the main matter. The petition, thereafter came to be restored. The State Government, being alive to the situation that the matter had already been restored and that they were required to file their counter affidavit, did not do anything for a long period. However, on 13.7.06, learned AGP prayed for time to file reply to the amended petition, the Court adjourned the matter to 8.8.06. Almost six months have passed, the State has not come out of its slumber and is enjoying its hibernation. They are not ready and willing to file reply to the amended petition. I am tempted to quote part of the observations made in the earlier order dated 23.3.2000.

(3.) IF these were the observations of the Court in 2002, I do not know how should this Court react in 2007. It is most unfortunate that the government and its officers are not interested in working. It appears that they have lost work culture and are only interested in attending this meeting or that meeting, have solace in their chambers and run after one or the other big man. They must not forget that they are public servants. They are not public bosses, they should always remember that if the Court requires them to file their reply, then they are obliged to file their reply. Many times, when they are required to appear in person, it causes heart -burning, but what the hell the Court can do. Requests made by the Court are turned down by such administrative officers thinking that they are entitled to turn down the request less realizing that request is made by the High Court to save honour of such person and such request tantamounts to an order by the High Court. Even after 17 years of filing of the petition and after two years of restoration of the petition, the State is not ready and willing to say anything. On earlier occasion, the Court had relied upon a statement made in para -15 of the petition wherein it was stated that the petitioners no. 1 and 3 were paid up to 31st May, 1986 for carrying water and the return fair. If that was the statement in the original petition, the same still stands and stands uncontroverted. If on that statement, writ could be granted, then in view of the unchallenged statement, this petition again can be allowed.