# authority for orders

- **Citation:** C.L.No.49/VIII-d-8
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1952-04-04
- **Case number:** C.L.No.49/VIII-d-8
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/authority-for-orders-163915
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

474

In a case of doubt, the head of the department should invariably refer to the higher
authority for orders.

These instructions apply as well to cases in which the Government is a party to
the suit. In such cases, much will depend on the legal advice as to the value of the
documents, but before they are produced in court, the considerations stated above must
be borne in mind, and reference to a higher authority made, when necessary. The
government servant, who is to attend a court, as a witness with official documents should,
where permission under section 128 has been withheld, be given an order duly signed by
the head of the department in the form given in the letter. He should produce it when he
is called upon to give his evidence, and should explain that he is not at liberty to produce
the document before the court, or to give any evidence derived from them. He should,
however, take with him the papers, which he has been summoned to produce.

The head of the department should abstain from entering into correspondence
with the presiding officer of the court concerned in regard to the grounds on which the
documents have been called for. He should obey the court's orders and should appear
personally, or arrange for the appearance of another officer in court with the documents,
and act as indicated above and produce the certificate if he claims privilege.
C.L.No.49/VIII-d-8 dated 4th April, 1952
If only the production of a document or formal proof of a routine letter and the
signatures fixed thereon is required, the choice of the agency through which it should be
produced or formally proved may be left to the head of the office. If for any reasons the
personal testimony of any particular officer is required, the propriety of his examination
on commission may be considered before a summons is issued.
C.L.No.44/VIII-d-8/Admn.(G) dated 26th July, 1989
It invites attention of all the presiding officers to the aforesaid circular letter for
strict compliance.
C.L.No.121/VIII-h-28 dated 9th December, 1952
Whenever any party wishes to summon a document from a government office or
department or to have a summons issued to a high government officer or a member of the
Government, it should be carefully scrutinized by the munsarim and if necessary, also by
the presiding officer of the court before it is issued and in no case should summons be
issued to a higher government officer or a member of the Government without the orders
of the presiding officer of the court.
C.L.No.121/VIII-h-28 dated 9th December, 1952
When a document is summoned from the custody of the Government the
summons should be issued to the Secretary of the relative department and if it cannot be
ascertained to which department the document relates, the summons should be addressed
to the Chief Secretary with sufficient particulars of the document required.
C.L.No.49/VIII-d-8 dated 4th April, 1952
The personal appearance of Gazetted Officers of the Accountant General's office
should be dispensed with unless necessary in the interest of justice.
475

The tracing of number of vouchers of a past period is not an easy task and courts
may also consider the possibility of reducing so far as may be practicable, the number of
vouchers or other documents summoned from the said office in any particular case.
C.L.No.44/VIII-d-8/Admn.(G) dated 26th July, 1989

It invites attention of all the presiding officers to the aforesaid circular letter for
strict compliance.
C.L.No.24/VII-b-92 dated 14th April, 1955 as amended by
C.L.No.32 dated 18th July, 1967
Under departmental rules the Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad is
required to keep Photostat copies of vouchers or other documents required to be produced
in a court of law which are liable to be impounded under the powers vested in the court
under section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The preparation of photostat copies will have to be done at Delhi where necessary
equipment has been provided by the department. When calling for vouchers or other
documents a clear one and a half months notice should be given to the above office.
C.L.No.77/VIII-h-28 dated 11th August, 1953

Section 57(7) of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the court shall take judicial
notice of the accession to office, names titles, functions, and signatures of the persons
filling for the time being any public office in any State if the fact of their appointment to
such office is notified in the official Gazette. As such, officers of Government should not
be summoned merely to prove these facts.
C.L.No.40/X-d a-12 dated 2nd June, 1955

Original agreements respecting the accession of the former Indian states to the
Dominion of India and their merger or integration into new political units being
agreements made by the Government of the Dominion of India concerning the affairs of
State are acts of the Sovereign authority and are, therefore, public documents within
clause 1(i) of section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They are printed in the ―White
paper on Indian States‖ a publication purporting to be printed by order of the Central
Government- which is admissible in proof of the documents under section 78(1) of the
Act. They can also be proved as provided in section 77 by the production of certified
copies granted under section 76. It should not, therefore, ordinarily be necessary for the
courts to require production of these original documents.

Issue of summons for the production of such original documents except in very
special circumstances should, therefore, be avoided.
(viii) Evidence after the report of the Amin
G.L.No. 2235/67-3 dated 17th August, 1918
The Privy Council in the case, Girish Chander Lahiri versus Shoshi Shikhareswar
Roy (ILR, XXVII, Cal. 951), deals with the discretion of the court in declining to take
evidence after the report of an Amin and appointment of Commissioners under rule 9,
Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure.