Litigants Can File Contempt Pleas Against Bar Association Office Bearers If Continuous Strikes Delay Revenue Cases : Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has issued general directions mandating that office bearers of Bar Associations will be held liable for contempt of court in case the proceedings under the UP-Revenue Code 2006 could not be concluded within the prescribed time limits due to continuous strikes. Stressing that the issue of strikes is affecting the public at large, specifically "poor litigants (farmers)", a Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal said that parties can file contempt pleas against the office bearers of the concerned Bar Association if their cases get delayed due to continuous strike of a Bar Association of any Tehsil, Collectorate or Commissionerate. The directions were passed in a plea where two petitioners sought a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur, to decide a suit for division of holding under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which had been pending since November 2022. The petitioners contended that under Rule 109(10) of the Rules, 2016, the Sub Divisional Magistrate is required to make an endeavor to decide such suits within a period of six months. Taking into account the petition and its averments, Justice Deshwal referred to the HC's 2023 judgment in the case of Daya Shankar Vs. State of UP and others, wherein strict time limits were prescribed for concluding various proceedings under the Revenue Code. For instance, in Daya Shankar, the HC had provided that an application for right of way and other easement u/s 25 and an application for removal of obstacle from public road, path or common land of village u/s 26 and plea for execution of the final decree passed u/s 116 of Code, 2006 by demarcation of Kurra on site should be decided within a period of one month. It was also provided that application u/s 58 to decide the dispute regarding property mentioned in Sections 54, 56 and 57 should be decided preferably within a period of three months from the date of application and similarly, application u/s 65 for delivery of possession of allotted land from unauthorized person should also be decided preferably within a period of three months. Also, a suit for declaration as bhumidhar/asami under Section-144 of the Code, 2006 was prescribed to be decided within a period of the six months. Justice Deshwal noted that in case a Presiding Officer fails to conclude the proceedings, without any reasonable explanation, within the time prescribed in the UP Revenue Code or by this Court, then he is liable to contempt for violation of the direction issued in Daya Shankar's case. However, upon perusing the order sheet in the present case, the Court noted that the proceedings had been pending primarily for the reason that there was a continuous strike on the part of advocates of Tehsil Utraula alongside the occasional non-availability of the Presiding Officer. The Court explicitly stated that it was clearly the strike of the Bar Association of Tehsil Utraula which was the reason for not concluding the proceedings. Thus, taking a stern view of the disruption caused to judicial work, the Court issued general directions for the entire State of Uttar Pradesh, in the following manner: "…in case the proceedings under Revenue Code could not be concluded within the time framed by this Court in the case of Daya Shankar (supra) because of the continuous strike of Bar Association of any Tehsil, Collectorate or Commissionerate, then the office bearers of Bar Association would be liable for contempt of this Court for violation of direction of Daya Shanjkar's case and the party would be at liberty to file contempt proceedings against the office bearers of the concerned Bar Association". While disposing of the petition, the Court directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur, to decide the petitioners' case within a period of six months. The Court made it clear that if the case is adjourned due to a continuous strike, the office bearers of the concerned Bar Association will be liable for contempt for making interruptions to the judicial directions. To ensure strict compliance, the Court directed the Office to send a copy of the order to the Chairman of the Board of Revenue. The Chairman has been directed to circulate the order to all Revenue Authorities from the Tehsil to the Commissionerate level and copies of the same shall also be pasted on the Notice Board. Case title - Parshuram And Another vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, Balrampur And OthersCitation : Click Here To Read/Download Order

Litigants Can File Contempt Pleas Against Bar Association Office Bearers If Continuous Strikes Delay Revenue Cases : Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags