ORDER :

1. Our order dated 31-01-2025 reads thus:-

"1. We admire the courage with which the State of Madhya Pradesh has been filing Special Leave Petitions in this Court over a period of time with delay of 300/400 days.

2. The above is not the problem. The matter of concern is as to who is taking the decision to challenge a particular order passed by the High Court before the Supreme Court.

3.In the present case, the State preferred a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 before the High Court with delay of 656 days. The State was not able to assign any sufficient cause for this gross delay and, accordingly, the High Court rejected the plea to condone the delay. It is this order which has now been made a subject matter of challenge before this Court by filing the present Special Leave Petition and that too with delay of 177 days.

4.We could have dismissed this petition solely on the ground of delay but we do not intend to do this as we have something else in our mind.

5. We direct the Law Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh to remain present before us on 14-2-2025 along with the original files containing the decision taken to challenge the impugned order passed by the High Court declining to condone the delay of 656 days.

6. We would like to know who is that authority who took the decision that the order passed by the High Court is worth challenging before this Court.

7. List on 14-2-2025."

2. Thereafter on 14.02.2025, we, inter-alia, pass the following order:-

"1. xxx xxx xxx

2. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, referred to above, Mr. N.P. Singh, Law Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh is personally present before this Court.

3. Mr. S.V. Raju, the learned Additional Solicitor General has appeared along with two learned counsel Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania and Mr. Venkatesh.

4. Mr. Raju pointed out that the procedure in the State of M.P. is quite different compared to the other States. In the State of M.P., the decision whether to file any appeal before the higher Court is taken by the Collector. He further pointed out that the Law Secretary, who is present before us took charge of the Office sometime on 14-8-2024 and is not aware of anything in the matter.

5. In such circumstances, we would like the concerned Collector to tell us how the decision was taken and in what manner he proposes to take care of the problem.

6. Let the Collector appear before us once with some concrete proposal. We shall look into the proposal and if need be, shall make our own recommendations to ensure that public money is not wasted by the State for such dead litigations.

7. We also expect the State Government to evolve some mechanism so that this problem can be taken care of and public money is saved.

8. On the next date of hearing, the authority concerned shall provide us with the true English translation of the notings which are in the vernacular language as contained in the original file so far as the present litigation is concerned.

9. On the next date of hearing, Law Secretary need not remain present.

10. Post it on 21-3-2025."

3. In pursuance of our order dated 14.02.2025, Mr. Priyank Mishra, Collector, Dhar, State of Madhya Pradesh is personally present before this Court. Mr. S.V.Raju, the learned ASG has appeared for the Collector.

4. Today when the matter was taken up for further hearing Mr. Raju brought to our notice that a detailed affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State duly affirmed by Mr. Priyank Mishra, Collector, Dhar. The Affidavit reads thus:-

"I, Priyank Mishra S/o Late Ramesh Chandra Mishra aged about 35 years, posted as Collector, District- Dhar, Madhya Pradesh do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

1. That, I posted as Collector, District- Dhar, Madhya Pradesh and I am competent to depose the present affidavit on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh.

2. That the present affidavit is being filed in compliance of the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the abov