# of Offices is authorized to ask for this information if it is not supplied

- **Citation:** C.L. NO. 2
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1938-07-02
- **Case number:** C.L. NO. 2
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/of-offices-is-authorized-to-ask-for-this-information-if-it-is-not-supplied-162639
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

324
responsible to the Chief Inspector for the action, which they take on his inspection notes
but they should inform him of the final orders they pass upon those notes so that he may
be able to carry out his inspections with efficiency from year to year. The Chief Inspector
of Offices is authorized to ask for this information if it is not supplied.
C.L. NO. 2 DATED 18TH JANUARY, 2000

Recall of Court's C.L. No. 36/180/18(7) , dated 21.7.1938.
I am directed to inform you that the Court has reviewed its C.L. No. 36/180/18(7),
dated 21.7.1938 by which the Chief Inspector of Offices were conducting inspection of
Civil Courts Offices. Now the Court has recalled the aforesaid Court‟s circular letter No.
36/180/18(7), dated 21.7.1938.
C.L. NO. 32-180-3(7) DATED 7TH JULY, 1939

With the amalgamation of the posts of Inspector General of Registration and
Chief Inspector of Stamps with effect from July 2, 1938, the respective inspectorates viz.,
Inspectorate of Stamps and the Inspectorate of Registration Offices were also
amalgamated into a combined service.
Inspectors of Registration and Stamps should be given all possible facilities for carrying
out their duties efficiently and the presiding officer of the court which is inspected should
be responsible for seeing that these facilities are given.
Part-time services of one of the court peons should also be allowed to the
Inspectors during the course of their inspection if and when necessary.
C.L. NO. 96/XA-4 DATED 1ST OCTOBER, 1958

If any head of department desires to get his office or any of the subordinate
offices under him inspected by the Inspectorate of Offices in connection with proposals
for extra staff, he should submit the proposal to Government in the administrative
department concerned. Such references should in no case be made direct to the Chief
Inspector of Government Offices.
(iii) Compliance of inspection report
C.L. NO. 59/XC-10 DATED 2ND MAY, 1952

The Inspector of Government Offices will, after completing, hand over or forward
to the District Judge concerned, two copies of his inspection note. One of these will be
forwarded by the District Judge to the Court without delay and the other will be retained
in his own office for taking necessary action thereon and for submitting a report to the
Court as to the action taken by him.
C.L. NO. 110/X-C-10 DATED 11TH NOVEMBER, 1953 AND
C.L. NO. 65/X-E-10 DATED 27TH APRIL, 1974

The above compliance report should be submitted to the Court in duplicate as
soon as possible or positively within one month of the receipt of the inspection note and
should deal with the objections separately, and not on the margin of the notes, paragraph
by paragraph. No report should be sent directly to the Chief Inspector of Offices.
325
C.L. NO. 51/X-C-10 DATED 26TH AUGUST, 1950

District Judges shall see that the defects and irregularities brought to their notice
as a result of the inspection of their offices by the Inspector of Offices are not repeated.
8.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
G.L. NO. 12/H-1 DATED 14TH FEBRUARY, 1948

The Court has noticed that in spite of the provisions in the rules and the
instructions issued by it, District Judges have not been inspecting their subordinate courts
regularly, and in the majority of cases inspections are not as detailed and exhaustive as
necessary. It is perhaps not realized that inspections are intended to serve a specific
purpose, and that purpose is defeated if District Judges inspect the courts subordinate to
them only superficially. Inspections should be given the same attention and importance as
other administrative work.
C.L. NO. 11/H-2-51 DATED 31ST JANUARY, 1915

The Court views with concern a general tendency on the part of the District and
Sessions Judges to overlook the instructions issued by it from time to time, particularly in
the matter of the inspection of subordinate courts. An occasional lapse may be
overlooked but a repeated breach of these instructions betrays a lack of appreciation of
the object of such instructions.
District Judges would be well advised to keep handy at one place a complete list
of the directions issued by the Court on the subject of inspections. A cursory glance at
these instructions immediately before an inspection is made would focus the attention of
the inspecting officer on the points requiring his attention and would make the inspection
much more methodical and useful than an average inspection is at present.
An inspection carried out in the spirit of a mere formal compliance of the
instructions issued by the Court is bound to defeat the very object of such inspections and
cannot lead to any useful result. The most common defects noticed in inspection notes are
indicated below:
(a)
Inspections are not made regularly. To avoid this, District Judges should
maintain a statement showing the dates on which various courts and
offices were inspected by presiding officers or by the District Judge. This
statement should be examined by the District Judge from time to time and
necessary instructions issued to the presiding officers of the courts
subordinate to him. It will also remind him about his own inspections.
(b)
Inspections are not done in the prescribed manner. If each officer adopts
his own method, there can be no uniformity. This leads to confusion. The
method indicated by the Court should be adhered to so far as practicable.
Copies of inspection notes should, as a rule, be forwarded to this Court
within a month from the date of inspection.
(c)
Confidential notes by the District Judge concerning the presiding officers
of the courts inspected are not sent alongwith copies of inspection notes.
This should be done in future. In any case the confidential notes should be