P.N. BHAGWATI, J.

(1) THIS case has now come before us after service of notice on the State of Bihar. When this case was taken up for hearing by us on 2/12/1980, we expressed our displeasure that the State of Bihar had not chosen to appear in answer to the notice, but this expression of dis- pleasure was made by us on the assumption that the notice was served on the State of Bihar. We are however informed by Mr. K. G. Bhagat, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar that the notice of the writ petition was served upon the State only on 6/12/1980 and that is the reason why it was not possible for the State to appear before us on December ?, 1980. We accept this explanation offered by Mr. K. G. Bhagat and exonerate the State of Bihar from remissness in appearing before the court on 2/12/1980.

(2) THE State has filed before us a counter-affidavit sworn by Tarkeshwar Parshad, Under-Secretary, Home (Police) Department of the State government giving various particulars required by us by our order dated 2/12/1980. We have also before us the counter-affidavit filed by Jitendra Narain Singh, Assistant Jailor, Bhagalpur central Jail, on behalf of the State and this affidavit gives certain other particulars required by us. The State has also in addition to these particulars, filed statements giving various particulars in regard to the blinded prisoners drawn from the records of the judicial magistrates dealing with their cases. The District & Sessions Judge has also addressed a letter to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court stating that for the reasons given in his letter, no inspection of the Bhagalpur central Jail has been carried out by the District & Sessions Judge in the year 1980. The Registrar (Judicial) has also furnished to us copies of the statements of the blinded prisoners and B. L. Das, former Superintendent of the Bhagalpur central Jail, recorded by him pursuant to the order of this Court dated 1/12/1980. Full and detailed arguments have been advanced before us on the basis of the particulars contained in these documents, but we do not, at this stage, propose to deal with the arguments in regard to each of the blinded prisoners and we shall examine only the broad contentions advanced before us, leaving the arguments in regard to each specific blinded prisoner to be dealt with at a later stage when the writ petition again comes up for hearing.

(3) BEFORE we deal with the main contentions urged before us on behalf of the parties, we must dispose of one serious question which raises a rather difficult problem and which has to be resolved with some immediacy. The problem is not so much a legal problem as a human one and it arises because the blinded prisoners who are undergoing treatment in the Rajendra Prasad Ophthalmic Institute, New Delhi are likely to be discharged from that Institute since their vision is so totally impaired that it is not possible to restore it by any medical or surgical treatment, and the question is where they can go. Mrs. Hingorani, on behalf of the blinded prisoners, expressed the apprehension that it may not be safe for them to go back to Bhagalpur, particularly when investigation into the offences of blinding was still in progress and some arrangement should, therefore, be made for housing them in New Delhi at the cost of the State. We cannot definitely state that the apprehension expressed by Mrs. Hingorani is totally unfounded nor can we say at the present stage that it is justified, but we feel that at least until the next date of hearing, it would be desirable not to send the blinded prisoners back to Bhagalpur. We would, therefore, suggest that the blinded prisoners who are discharged from the Rajendra Prasad Ophthalmic Institute, New Delhi should be kept in the Home which is being run by the Blind Relief Association of Delhi on the Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, New Delhi and the State of Bihar should bear the cost of their boarding and lodging in that Home