IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.39 of 2008 Date of decision: 01.05.2008 Sh.Devinderjit ....Petitioner -Versus- Shri Harish Kumar and another ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Petitioner: Mr.J.S.Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, counsel for R-1. Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. for R-2. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This case clearly reflects the shocking state of affairs which exists in the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Urban), Shimla. One appeal titled Devinderjit vs. Harish Kumar was instituted in the Court of the S.D.M. (U), Shimla in the year 2003. This Appeal was filed under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act and was admittedly listed on 12.7.2005. It appears to have been disposed of on the same day. Thereafter, on 13.7.2005 the petitioner filed an application for supply of the certified copy of the order dated 12.7.2005. On this application a note was made that the case is still pending and case number may be given and the same appears to have been returned to the petitioner herein. Thereafter, according to the petitioner he filed an application on 17th May, 2006 again requesting that the file of the appeal may be traced and the order be conveyed to 2 the petitioner. No action was taken on this application. The respondents dispute the filing of this application. Be that as it may, another application was filed in the month of October, 2007 for tracing out the file. On this the SDM marked the file to the Reader with the direction to put up with concerned file. The Reader further made a note on this application on 25.10.2007 to the Ahlmad to trace the file and put up with original. The Ahlmad made a following note on 1.11.2007: “From the perusal of the concerned case register the case has not instituted in the court.” This application was thereafter returned to the petitioner. First of all I do not understand how an application filed in Court could have been returned without any order from the Judicial Officer. Once an application is filed in judicial proceedings it becomes a part of the judicial record and cannot be returned to the party except by passing a judicial order. I had called for all the records including the institution and peshi registers. The note of the Ahlmad is also totally incorrect since as per the institution register as well as the peshi register produced before me this case was filed and listed on various dates. In fact, now the stand of the respondents is that the case was actually disposed of on 12.7.2005. I have perused the institution register. On the first page of the institution register the heading of various columns is attached and one of the headings is the date of presentation of memorandum. I find that from 1984 onwards the date of institution was being mentioned but from 1993 the practice of mentioning the date of 3 institution has been stopped and only a serial number was being given. This practice is totally incorrect. The requirement of the Rules and the Law is that the date of presentation of memorandum, names of the parties with parentage and complete address must be given in the institution register. This practice also seems to have been given up and the person maintaining the peshi register is only giving short title in most of the cases. This practice is totally unacceptable. I find that the other columns regarding details of the Court from which the appeal has been filed with case number, date etc. are not being followed at all. The requirement of law is that in the register it should be mentioned whether the memorandum is an appeal or an original case and what is the type of case. The provisions of law under which the case is filed, the court from which the appeal has been filed, the date of the order against which the appeal has been filed etc. are all required to be entered in the institution register. Similarly the date of judgment of the appeal/case whether the order of the SDM confirms/reverses or sets aside the impugned order are also required to be entered. This has also not been done. The remarks column is virtually blank. This state of affairs cannot be permitted to continue. This Court has even previously held that if administrative offices are to be conferred with judicial powers they must exercise these powers in a judicial manner. From the institution register, which has been produced before me, it cannot be gauged on which date the case was filed. In the present case, the copy of the order 4 now attached with the reply filed by the SDM, shows that the case was instituted on 20.9.2003. Sh.Bhogal submits that this fact is also incorrect and the appeal was actually instituted on 29th September, 2003. Even if that is not accepted the fact remains that in the institution register this case shown to have been instituted in the quarter beginning Ist January, 2004 and ending on 31st March, 2004 and not in September, 2003. I have also perused the peshi register and find that on a large number of days, for example, on 24th November, 2003 and 25th November, 2003 etc. the next dates have not been mentioned in the peshi register. The requirement of law in respect of peshi register is that in the first column serial number shall be entered, in the second column the title of the case is to be entered, under the third column section under which case has been filed is to be mentioned, in the fourth column the date of hearing and under the next heading the next date of hearing has to be given. This register is also not being maintained as per the requirement of law. A perusal of the registers of the SDO (Civil) produced in the present case reveal that the working in these institutions is not at all proper. Article 227 of the Constitution of India reads as follows: “227.Power of Superintendence over all courts by the High Court.- (1)Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2)Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the high Court may- (a)call for returns from such courts; 5 (b)make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c )prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (3)The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein: Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. (4)Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.” This Court exercises powers of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals in the entire State of Himachal Pradesh. This Court is empowered to call for the returns from all such Courts and is also entitled to make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceeding of such courts. Once this Court or the Financial Commissioner had issued directions that the registers are to be maintained in a particular fashion that becomes the mandate of law. No official can violate this mandate of law and every official is duty bound to maintain the registers in the prescribed form. The purpose of giving the details mentioned above is that everything is transparent. The non-maintenance of the registers in the proper form and the manner in which the present matter was dealt with casts a serious doubt not only on the efficiency but also with regard to the integrity of the officials concerned. If the public looses its faith in the judicial officers the country will come to ruin. In case the administrative offices feel that the exercise of these 6 powers are undue burden on them they may approach the Government for transferring these matters to the Courts but legal matters must be dealt in the legally prescribed manner. This Court cannot countenance handling of judicial cases in such a slip shod manner. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court directs the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as well as the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to send a copy of this order to all Administrative Officers exercising judicial powers working under them to maintain registers of all types relating to judicial work in the manner prescribed by law failing which appropriate action shall be taken against them. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh shall file a compliance affidavit that the orders of this Court have been communicated to all concerned on or before 30th June, 2008. In future, if any, lapse is brought to the notice of this Court the same shall be viewed very seriously. This is not the first time that this Court has come across such serious defaults in handling of such cases by administrative offices. In future all judicial orders shall be passed in judicial cases by the concerned officers themselves. The concerned officers shall be responsible for all the orders passed and actions taken by their staff. 7 As far as the present case is concerned, a copy of the order shall also be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla who shall hold an inquiry into the matter, fix the responsibility on the erring official and take suitable disciplinary action and report the entire action taken to this Court. An affidavit in this regard shall be filed on or before 31st August, 2008. As far as the present case is concerned it is obvious from the record that the same appears to have been decided on 12th July, 2005. In fact the petitioner also applied for a copy of this order and further filed two applications stating that he had been told that the appeal has been dismissed on the said date but the copy of the order was not supplied and the same only first time annexed with the reply filed to the present petition. This copy was supplied only on the last date i.e. on 24th April, 2008. Keeping in view the fact that now the attested copy has been placed on record the petitioner may apply for the certified copy within one week from today. On his filing the application for the certified copy the same shall be supplied within one week thereafter. In case the petitioner thereafter files an appeal/Revision in the normally prescribed period of limitation after supply of copy the same shall be treated to have been filed within limitation. This order is being passed because till now the petitioner was informed by the office of the SDM that no order had been passed in his appeal. The Registry is directed to handover the original CD-I Form as well as the original application Annexure P-6 to Shri Rajesh 8 Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General after keeping Photostat copies on record. This will be done by the Registry on or before 20th May, 2008. Sh.Rajesh Mandhotra will send the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla to facilitate him to conduct inquiry in the matter. The records retained by this Court vide order dated 24.4.2008 i.e. file of Appeal No.5 of 2004, Peshi Register and Institution Register are returned to the SDM (Urban), Shimla. The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Dasti copy. May 1, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge.