Neglecting to file a reply despite multiple opportunities can lead to disapproval from the Court and an order to pay costs to the petitioner.

V.K. Gupta, C.J.

1. In this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner is not seeking to challenge any order passed by the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal but is seeking directions qua the early disposal of the Original Application filed by him which, owing to the utter neglect on the part of the respondent is not making any headway despite its pendency for over two years. The petitioner's dismay is that despite its pendency for over two years, in the said Original Application the respondent has not been filing the reply even though opportunities have been given to it by the learned Tribunal on several occasions since April, 2004.

2. A perusal of the present Miscellaneous Petition and the Annexures filed therewith shows that the first order was passed in this Original Application on 28th April, 2004 by the Division Bench of the learned Tribunal directing the respondent-State to file reply to the Original Application within six weeks. Thereafter various orders were passed by the Tribunal from time to time extending time for filing the reply by the respondent-State. On 3rd May, 2006, the Tribunal passed the following order:

Despite last opportunity reply has not been filed. Learned Deputy Advocate General prays for and is granted one more opportunity to file reply within four weeks subject to cost of Rs. 200/ - which may be recovered from the erring officer/official. List thereafter.

MA No. 2544/05.

MA No. 827/05.

List along with the main matter.

3. The tone and tenor of the aforesaid, order clearly suggests that "last opportunity" had been granted by the Tribunal to the respondent to file the reply before 3rd May, 2006 but even despite the grant of the last opportunity the reply had not been filed. Four weeks' time was granted on 3rd May, 2006 to file the reply subject to payment of Rs. 200/- as costs. Four weeks' time granted vide this order was to expire on 31st May, 2006. Reply had still not been filed.

4. In the aforesaid background the petitioner was constrained to file this petition in this Court on 20th June, 2006. Admittedly until then the reply had not been filed.

Consequent upon the order passed by this Court yesterday, Shri Lalit Thakur, Under Secretary (PW), Government of Himachal Pradesh has filed his reply-affidavit . In this reply-affidavit the sequence of events as have been unfolded by the aforesaid deponent suggests an attempt by the aforesaid deponent to lead (or is it mislead) this Court into believing that it was for the first time that on 4 May, 2006, the Additional Advocate General informed the office of the Secretary (PW) that the aforesaid Original Application was pending and that reply was required to be filed in four weeks' time. Unfolding of the sequence of events has been narrated in para 3 (a) of the reply, relevant extract whereof reads thus:

That vide letter No. 5262 dated 4.5.2006 the office of Learned Additional Advocate General, State of H.P. intimated the office of Secretary (PW) that the O.A. 1163/04 Sher Singh, Foreman v. State of H.P. was listed before Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal on 3.5.2006 when 4 weeks time was granted to file the reply to the same as last opportunity subject to the cost of Rs. 500/- which shall be recovered from the erring officer....

5. A perusal of the record of the respondent shows that as early as on 28th April, 2004, the then learned Additional Advocate General had informed the respondent about the passing of the order on 28th April, 2004 by the Tribunal and informing the respondent that reply had to be filed within six weeks from that date. It clearly emerges that the respondent was in the know of the pendency of the Original Application as early as in April, 2004 based upon the aforesaid communication received from the office of the Additional Advocate General. The aforesaid deponent in the aforesaid affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent conceale