LAWS(RAJ)-2025-3-419

BADRI NARAYAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On March 24, 2025
BADRI NARAYAN SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant case is yet another glaring example, where the file of the case has not been handed over by the concerned Officer In-Charge (OIC) to the counsel appearing on behalf of the department.

(2.) This case is pending before this Court since 2016 i.e. for almost nine years. This Court feels pain to observe that in most of the cases, the Officers-In-Charge of the cases are not providing the original case file to their respective counsels and because of their such condemnable negligence and lethargic attitude, the cases are deferred from one day to another, which hampers the process of providing justice to the litigants. This Court while taking a serious note of the above aspect of the matter, passed a stern order across the State in the case of Sardar Mal Yadav Vs. State Elementary Education and Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 807/2012 vide order dtd. 7/2/2025 where it has been observed in para 12, 13, 14 and 15 as under:-

(3.) While passing the aforesaid order dtd. 7/2/2025, this Court referred to Rule 233 of the Rajasthan Law and Legal Affairs Department Manual, 1999 which provides duties of the Officer-In-Charge of the cases. It appears that the Officers- In-Charges are unaware of the duties assigned to them and that is why they are handling Court cases, in a casual and negligent manner. The State Government is party to the majority of pending litigations before this Court and has a vast and well-equipped machinery, capable of finding solutions to any problem. However, it is the litigant who is taking advantage of the situation due to the negligent behavior of the Officers, who are not treating the matters with the seriousness they deserve. As a result of their casual approach, the matters have been deferred repeatedly from one day to the next. This Court has observed on several occasions that due to change in Government, departmental counsels are frequently replaced. In most cases, the newly appointed counsels demonstrate their inability to assist the Court, often citing the non-receipt of files from the concerned Officer-In-Charge (OIC) or department. It is utterly shocking and surprising that no list of pending department-wise cases is provided to the counsels representing the respective departments. As a result, the counsels are unable to determine how many cases are pending against their departments.