FAUZDAR MALLAH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CHANDAULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite order dated 11-3-2002 no counter-affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances we stay the realization in pursuance of the impugned recovery dated 9-12-1999.

(2.) We would further like to mention that in a large number of writ petitions and other cases in this Court counter-affidavits are not being filed by the respondent authorities within the time granted by the Court and very often they are not being filed at all despite several opportunities given by the Court for filing counter-affidavit. In the present case on 11-3-2002 learned Standing Counsel was granted four seeks time to file counter-affidavit but what to say of four weeks more than five months have expired but no counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned Standing Counsel states that the office had sent the letter to the respondent along with copy of the writ petition but no one came to file the counter-affidavit. This is a regrettable state of affairs and must be rectified because it is the State which suffers if counter-affidavit is not filed and writ petitions are allowed on the ex parte version of the petitioner. Justice means hearing the version of both the sides and not merely the petitioner. Hence counter-affidavits must be filed by the respondent, but unfortunately they are not being filed in a large number of cases despite several opportunities granted by the Court.

(3.) In our opinion, the reason for this is that we have not modernized our working method in the judiciary when the world is becoming more than more modernized everyday. The method of communication now-a-days is very fast by internet and other devices, and within second communication can be made to the department concerned of the order of the Court granting time for filing counter-affidavit. We are informed by the learned Standing Counsel that the internet or fax is not used for this purpose and instead the old method of sending said letters is still in vogue.