New Delhi, July 31: Odisha law secretary Debabrata Dash got a mouthful from the Supreme Court today for the manner in which the state government has been mishandling cases involving the state in the top court, but the court stopped short of initiating contempt action against him.

“We are not going to run your law department,” Justices T.S. Thakur and Gyansudha Misra said in exasperation. The state government was absent in the court at the last hearing of the Mesco case, prompting the judges to call in the secretary to put in a personal appearance to explain the situation.

Appearing for the state, senior lawyer P.P. Rao defended Dash, but the court was not convinced with his explanation that the process of appointing a standing counsel takes time.

“How is the state not taking care of these matters? How did it go unrepresented…. it was being dismissed for default (in appearance of lawyer),” Justcie Jain said.

“We had to take care to ensure that the state’s interests are protected,” the bench said.

The state had removed its earlier standing counsel, Suresh Tripathy, before the court closed for its summer recess, but has been struggling ever since to manage its cases. Justice Thakur wondered what the state’s other panel lawyers (five in number) were doing.

“What king of governance is this? You make a simple, easy thing complicated,” the bench observed.

The bench adversely commented on the process of assigning the cases between panel lawyers too when told that the issue is first placed before the resident commissioner who in turn sends it to the law secretary who in turn asks the department concerned to pick a panel lawyer with the necessary expertise to handle the case.

“This process will take two years,” the bench observed sarcastically.

Justice Jain sought to know if Dash was a judicial officer on deputation. “If it was he is completely unsuitable for the case,” he said. “He should put in a stint in the district courts,” he suggested.

The bench also pointed out that the state’s absence in a crucial mining matter might lead to fingers being pointed at it.

“In mining matters, where fingers can be pointed (at collusion with the company), you don’t defend cases,” the bench observed acidly.

The bench then suggested that the state appoint lawyers and pay them proper fees to ensure that they stay loyal to the state and defend its cases. “Should there be default in appearance, treat it as misconduct and suspend him,” it suggested.

In a bid to deflect attent ion from the current imbroglio, Rao suggested that Tripathy was removed as standing counsel because of misconduct.

“There were serious allegations against him and the matter went up to the chief minister,” Rao said.

This prompted Tripathy who was present to object to these remarks. Tripathy instead claimed that he had handed back the papers, related to all 40 cases in which he was appearing for the state in the top court, to the state government.

The law department has been disputing this. But the bench did not buy this argument. “There is a serious dereliction of duty on your part. If Tripathy was removed, the law secretary should have appointed another,” Justice Misra said.

She said that she could list at least a half a dozen such cases in which the state had failed to turn up in recent days to defend its case.

The bench, however, refrained from taking contempt action against Dash, instead preferring to warn him to be “cautious” in future. “The state’s resources are enough, you must pay counsels so that they stay loyal,” Justice Jain added.