IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11228 of 2007 YASMIN PARVEEN, wife of Md. Mustakim, resident of village- Rahmat Ganj, P. O. Masawrhi, P. S. Masaurhi, District- Patna. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR ] 2. The Commissioner-cum- Principal Secretary, Department of Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Patna. 5. The District Welfare Officer, Patna. 6. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Masawrhi, Patna. 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Masaurhi Block, Patna. 8. The Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Masaurhi, District Patna. 9. The Ward Commissioner, Ward No. 9, Nagar Parishad, Masaurhi, District- Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 06.01.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Pursuant to the earlier order dated 3.12.2009 Mrs. Kumari Anupma, Child Development Project Officer, Masaurhi is personally present and by filing show-cause has explained that the statement made in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit was inadvertently made and in fact she wanted to convey that the contents made in the representation contained in Annexure- 5 to the writ application is wrong and baseless. Counsel for the State however in presence of Child Development Project Officer 2 is not again in a position to support the aforementioned statements inasmuch as the said Child Development Project Officer has not conducted any enquiry with regard to the facts mentioned in the representation and therefore it becomes clear that the Child Development Project Officer, Masaurhi is trying to only mislead the Court. She is a Government Officer and being at least graduate she is supposed to understand the contents of the counter affidavit duly sworn and filed by her. It is really pathetic that either her earlier statement or her modified statement given in the show-cause is not supported by any document even though its verification in the affidavit is ‘as per record’. Apparently, it is a deplorable situation in which counter affidavits are being filed before this court by Government Officials in a most casual and cavalliar manner without being actually aware of its contents. Unfortunately, the office of Advocate General and government counsel also do not pay sufficient attention in drafting and filing of counter affidavit. This Court however would give benefit of doubt to the 3 said Child Development Project Officer by recording a warning that she should be more careful and vigilant in future in filing her affidavit in any court of law. Coming back to the merits of the case, this court would find that the representation filed before the Collector of District by the petitioner has still not been disposed of. From a note-sheet produced before this Court by the said Child Development Project Officer, it would appear that the said representation was not attended to and remained pending for disposal only on account of pendency of this writ application. That being so, this court would now direct the Collector of Patna District to dispose of the representation of the petitioner after affording opportunity of hearing to him as also concerned representative of Nagar Parishad Masaurhi within the time frame prescribed by the State Government in its latest circular dated 10.12.2009 . It is however made clear that whatever has been said above with regard to the conduct of Child Development Project 4 Officer, Masaurhi or even in the earlier order of this Court dated 3.12.2009 would have no bearing on the disposal of the representation of the petitioner by the Collector of Patna District. The personal appearance of Kumari Anupama, C.D.P.O., Masaurhi, is dispensed with. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)