Tweet
No representation in mining cases from Odisha irks SC
With Odisha failing to nominate a single lawyer in over half-a-dozen cases, the Supreme Court on Tuesday termed it as reflective of the Odisha Government’s “administrative deficiency”.
The State’s absence bothered the court most in a mining matter where the Odisha Government was a necessary party. In view of the seriousness of the case, the court had been refraining from dismissing the matter and giving several opportunities to the State to nominate a lawyer. But with no reply forthcoming, the court summoned the Odisha Law Secretary who brought a senior lawyer on Tuesday to cover his fault.
“Non-appearance of your Government before us reflects administrative deficiency in the State. We will treat it as misconduct on your part,” the bench of Justices TS Thakur and Gyan Sudha Mishra told Principal Secretary Debabrata Dash, who heads the Law Department of the State.
Senior advocate PP Rao, who defended the officer, assured the court that the fault was on part of the lawyer handling the brief in the case. Rao submitted an affidavit to the court in a sealed cover informing several instances of dereliction against the State counsel, following which he was disengaged from the case on April 9. It was only on July 12, that a resolution was passed replacing him by another lawyer in all cases that he appeared for the state. However, the Law Department did not receive the case files, Rao added.
But the bench questioned the three-month delay between April-July attributing it to “dereliction” on part of the officer concerned. “At least half a dozen matters have come before us where the State counsel did not appear. We see through the things. I think it is a kind of modus operandi on part of the State Government,” commented Justice Mishra.
On learning that the officer was a senior district judge of the cadre of Odisha Superior Judicial Service, posted with the Law Department on deputation, the bench wondered how the officer could be so callous in a mining matter where “anybody can raise a finger on his integrity”. “If he does not know how to handle litigation in Supreme Court, what will be the position in lower courts,” the bench noted.
With Odisha failing to nominate a single lawyer in over half-a-dozen cases, the Supreme Court on Tuesday termed it as reflective of the Odisha Government’s “administrative deficiency”.
The State’s absence bothered the court most in a mining matter where the Odisha Government was a necessary party. In view of the seriousness of the case, the court had been refraining from dismissing the matter and giving several opportunities to the State to nominate a lawyer. But with no reply forthcoming, the court summoned the Odisha Law Secretary who brought a senior lawyer on Tuesday to cover his fault.
“Non-appearance of your Government before us reflects administrative deficiency in the State. We will treat it as misconduct on your part,” the bench of Justices TS Thakur and Gyan Sudha Mishra told Principal Secretary Debabrata Dash, who heads the Law Department of the State.
Senior advocate PP Rao, who defended the officer, assured the court that the fault was on part of the lawyer handling the brief in the case. Rao submitted an affidavit to the court in a sealed cover informing several instances of dereliction against the State counsel, following which he was disengaged from the case on April 9. It was only on July 12, that a resolution was passed replacing him by another lawyer in all cases that he appeared for the state. However, the Law Department did not receive the case files, Rao added.
But the bench questioned the three-month delay between April-July attributing it to “dereliction” on part of the officer concerned. “At least half a dozen matters have come before us where the State counsel did not appear. We see through the things. I think it is a kind of modus operandi on part of the State Government,” commented Justice Mishra.
On learning that the officer was a senior district judge of the cadre of Odisha Superior Judicial Service, posted with the Law Department on deputation, the bench wondered how the officer could be so callous in a mining matter where “anybody can raise a finger on his integrity”. “If he does not know how to handle litigation in Supreme Court, what will be the position in lower courts,” the bench noted.
