Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ.—The defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter is hereby ignored.

2. Under extremely urgent circumstances, a mention was made in the morning by the learned Advocate General for posting L.P.A No. 154 of 2025 which was filed only today in the Registry.

3. While hearing a writ petition captioned CWJC No. 2354 of 2025, which was posted before the learned Single Judge on the first day on 13.02.2025, an order was passed asking the counsel for the State to inform and request Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar to be present in the Court on the same day in the second half of the Court working hours.

4. The Court was informed that because of some miscommunication and absence of any written order on record, such a direction could not be complied with.

5. The learned Single Judge held it to be contumacious enough to declare it to be contempt of Court and apart from referring to the merits of the case, directed the Additional Chief Secretary to appear before the Court on 14.02.2025 at 2:15 PM without fail.

6. Expressing strong reservations against such an order having been passed on the first day of the hearing of the case, notwithstanding the merits of the case, it was urged before us that there is a process delineated by way of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in terms of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad & Ors. 2024 (2) BLJ 106 SC, wherein it has been enumerated as to under what circumstances, personal presence of the Officers of Government could be asked for.

7. The SOP clearly identifies three different types of adjudication namely, (i) evidence based adjudication; (ii) summary proceedings and (iii) non-adversarial proceedings. While hearing non-adversarial proceedings, the SOP illustrates, a Court might require presence Government official to understand any complex policy or technical issue which the Law Officers of the Government would not be able to address. Similarly in evidence based adjudication involving evidence such as documents or oral statements wherein also a Government official would be required to be physically present for testimony or to present relevant documents and the governing statute with respect to the procedure would be the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

8. Other than in cases falling under these two categories, the issues could always be addressed through affidavits and other documents, thus obviating the necessity of any physical presence of the officers.

9. The SOP does not preclude a Court from calling the officer, where it is prima facie satisfied that specific information is not being provided or is being intentionally withheld or if correct position is being suppressed or is being misrepresented.

10. A proscription, therefore, has been sounded that the Courts should not direct the presence of officials solely because the officials stance is different from the Court’s view. In such cases, if the matter could be resolved based on existing records, it should be decided on merits accordingly.

11. Even with respect to calling for the personal presence of the officer, certain procedure has been delineated namely that the Court should allow, as a first option, the officer to appear before it through video conferencing.

12. Whenever a personal presence of an official is directed, reason should be recorded as to why such presence is required.

13. Due notice for any personal appearance giving sufficient time for such appearance must be served in advance to the official which would enable him to come prepared and render assistance to the Court for proper adjudication of the matter for which he is summoned.

14. Other procedures also have been laid down.

15. It appears from the order dated 13.02.2025 that the matter was taken up in the first half of the Court proceedings and the officer concerned was asked to appear in the second half, which directions,