DROPADI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued out the case at length and submitted that whereabouts of husband of the petitioner is not known since long and the respondents are neither making any effort to find him out nor they are filing any affidavit despite a copy of this writ petition served upon them in the month of January, 2014 itself and in spite of an order passed by this court on 25th February, 2014. Counsel for the State of Jharkhand, i.e. respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is seeking time, to file affidavit of Respondent No. 6. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that they had already filed an affidavit in compliance of the direction passed by this court on 25th February. 2014.

(2.) It is the misfortune of the petitioner that despite an order passed by this court, respondent No. 6 has not filed his affidavit as to what efforts have been made to find out husband of the petitioner at all till date since January, 2014, when memo. of this writ petition has been served upon the office of the Advocate General.

(3.) We, therefore, direct the State of Jharkhand not to pay salary to the Superintendent of Police. Hazaribagh, who is Respondent No. 6, till the next date of hearing or till the affidavit is filed in this writ petition by Superintendent of Police. Hazaribagh. If the affidavit has already been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, then stay against payment of salary shall not be operative. In this case no affidavit has been filed despite order of this court and this court cannot wait indefinitely for an affidavit to be filed by the State. Looking to the seriousness of the matter, the State ought to have filed an affidavit expeditiously on their own, but, owing to the hapless state of affairs in this State the affidavit has not been filed in spite of an order passed by this court. Therefore, with a view to give one more chance to Respondent State and its officers, this matter is adjourned to be listed on 29th April, 2014.