A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla of the Allahabad High Court has observed in the case of Gurudeen v. the State of UP And 2 Others in observed in simple, straight, and strict language that,
“Now the time has come to take cognizance of all such matters where meaningless litigation is being generated due to lawyers abstaining from work.”
The Court was hearing a writ petition that was filed by a person named Gurudeen seeking speedy disposal of a mutation case under Section 34 of the UP Land Revenue Act, within a stipulated period. The Court in this notable case also significantly underscored that the time has come when the Bar Council of the State, as well as the Bar Council of India, should deliberate on the issue of lawyers abstaining from work and pass appropriate resolution/guidelines in this regard.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court noted that allegations are being raised against the Presiding Officer, whereas perusal of the order-sheet indicates that a clear reason for being not present in the Court has been given that the Presiding Officer is busy due to administrative reasons. It is of common knowledge that the officers presiding over such courts are at times, required to attend various tasks by remaining present on the spot or being present in the office of the superior authorities, etc, in other words, by physically remaining out of their offices or busy for administrative reasons. Hence, the reason that Presiding Officer is busy due to administrative reasons is broadly understandable, though it cannot be a ground for intentionally adjourning the matter.
“Now the time has come that before issuing direction or even notice to the Presiding Officer, the order-sheet should be looked into to ascertain as to whether the substantial cause of delay is on the part of the lawyers or not.”
The Court further observed that a perusal of the order-sheet clearly indicates that after passing of aforesaid order dated 20.5.2019 by this Court, on 37 dates, the lawyers were not working and it is only on few dates they were present and proceedings were undertaken. For a certain period, courts were not functioning due to Covid-19 Pandemic.
"On the earlier occasion also I have considered the question of issuing writ of mandamus in case of disposal of mutation cases after considering the judgment of this Court in case of Chadra Bali vs. Additional Commissioner And Others 2012 (4) ADJ 13, wherein general mandamus was issued to decide certain nature of cases within a time-bound period as well as the Government Order dated 16.5.2012 issued by the State Government, whereon a circular dated 17.5.2012 was issued by the Commissioner Board of Revenue, Lucknow and provisions of U.P. Janhit Guarantee Adhiniyam, 2011.”
The Court thus concluded that,
"It is clear that such matters are liable to be decided as expeditiously as possible and in a time bound manner. However, when the lawyers are abstaining from the work, the words “working days” assumes importance. In the present case itself it is clear that apprehension of this Court as expressed in the case of Prafull Kumar (Supra) was not baseless as it is clear from the facts of the present case where even after mandamus was issued by this Court, the lawyers were abstaining from work, therefore, clearly, “working days” are not available with the court/ authority concerned due to reason ‘lawyers abstaining from work’, however, again for this reason only interest of justice should not suffer and court/ authority should proceed if litigant/ litigants is/ are present in person.”
“In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to entertain the present petition to grant the prayer for which the petitioner has already approached this Court wherein, the direction was issued to decide the case, expeditiously, although, no direction was issued to decide the case within the time-bound manner. This is a glaring example of nonfunctioning of the lawyers at the revenue side in particular, which I have already noted in Prafull Kumar (Supra).”
The Court highlighted that this is a case where even after obtaining the order from this Court, lawyers were abstaining from work, and thereafter, again they approach this Court seeking further direction. At times contempt proceedings are initiated. Usually, the experience of this Court in such matters is that initially the contempt petitions are also disposed of by giving one more opportunity to the opposite party to decide the case/ comply with the order of this Court. At times, again lawyers do not appear and a second contempt petition is filed, whereon usually notices to Presiding Officers are issued. In such manner, the Advocates, on the one hand, charge their professional fees and on the other hand, even after direction of this Court to argue the matter, they do not appear to argue the case on the ground of call for strike or resolution of the concerned Bar Association to refrain from work for any reason whatsoever. Hence, meaningless litigation is generated before this Court without there being any fruitful relief granted to the litigant.
"This speaks a lot about sorry states of affairs in the courts below, particularly on the revenue side. Clearly, apprehension of this Court as expressed in Prafull Kumar (Supra) was not without basis.”
“The poor litigant, in such matters, particularly, at the lower level on the revenue side, is charged fees for pursuing his grievance, however, in such persuasion litigant/ petitioner is not getting any relief on merits of his claim and grievance on the procedural side of the matter remains that the court is not proceeding to decide and/ or pass orders and that the court be directed to proceed to decide the case within a time-bound manner.”
In such view of the matter, the Court did not find any good ground to grant any such relief as prayed for in this petition. Now the time has come to take cognizance of all such matters where meaningless litigation is being generated due to lawyers abstaining from work and as already observed in Prafull Kumar (Supra), is not serving any substantial cause of the litigant or of the society at large and is not in the interest of justice as a huge time of the Courts and therefore, huge public money is wasted in attending such meaningless litigation.
“...in the interest of justice, as the litigants should not suffer for any reason, it is provided that in case parties are present in-person before the Presiding Officer, the Presiding Officer/ authority concerned shall make all efforts to decided the case as expeditiously as possible as already directed by this Court.”
Held
The petition was thus dismissed.
Case Details
Case Name: Gurudeen v. State of UP And 2 Others
Case Number: WRIT C No. 23781 of 2021
Read Order ;
source ; .latestlaws.com/
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments