4 Aug 2021 3:16 PM GMT
"Lawyers cannot take the working of the Court for granted as on one hand, obviously, the lawyers must have charged their professional fee and thereafter, they are abstaining from work and on the other hand, they are seeking a direction to the Court concerned to decide the case within a specific period," observed Allahabad High Court today while dismissing a plea seeking time-bound...
"Lawyers cannot take the working of the Court for granted as on one hand, obviously, the lawyers must have charged their professional fee and thereafter, they are abstaining from work and on the other hand, they are seeking a direction to the Court concerned to decide the case within a specific period," observed Allahabad High Court today while dismissing a plea seeking time-bound disposal of a case.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla was hearing a writ petition filed by one Prafull Kumar seeking a direction to the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad to decide an Appeal within a specific period as fixed by the Court.
The Court perused the order-sheet right from the year 2014 and noted that except on few dates almost throughout the lawyers were abstaining from work and that once the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution also.
Interestingly, since the lawyers were regularly abstaining from work, a rubber stamp was being used on the order-sheet that the lawyers are abstaining from work.
This position, the Court noted, was continuing since the year 2014 itself till date except for the period during which the Court was not functioning due to Covid-19 Pandemic.
In these circumstances, the Court noted thus:
"Almost every day large number of petitions are coming before this Court with similar prayers that proceedings may be decided within a time bound period and in most of the cases order sheet of the case reflects the same state of affairs with only very few exceptions. This speaks a lot about sorry states of affairs in the courts below, particularly on revenue side."
Under such circumstances, the Court refused to grant the relief as prayed for in the writ petition and called it a sheer wastage of time of the Court concern and ultimately of resources, financial or otherwise, of the litigants as well of the taxpayers.
The Court said that if such directions and/or mandamus would be issued, the Court/Authority would be under the threat of Contempt of Court, if the case is not decided.
"This again generate litigation creating an unnecessary burden on the Court. Again the big question mark is there, for whose benefit? May be the same lawyer who is abstaining from work is generating this litigation, which in fact, is not serving as substantial counsel of the litigant or of the society at large," concluded the Court.
Thus, the writ petition was dismissed.
Lastly, the Standing Counsel as well as the Registry of this Court were directed to send a copy of the order to the concerned Bar Association within a period of 15 days so that the Bar Association and learned members of the concerned Bar Association may be sensitized about the working of the court and plight of the litigants from whom they have charged their professional fees.
The Court also directed the registry to forward a copy of the order to all the District Judges and Commissioners of the region and Board of Revenue for being forwarded to all the Bar Associations for the purpose of sensitizing the lawyers on this issue.
Case title - Prafull Kumar v. State Of U.P And Another
Click Here To Download Order