Allahabad High Court
Geeta Devi vs Additional Commissioner Gorakhgup And ... on 8 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:82740
Court No. - 53
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13588 of 2024
Petitioner :- Geeta Devi
Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Gorakhgup And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus commanding respondent No.1 to expeditiously decide the proceedings of Revision No.C2004050000111 (Nareshwarchandra vs. Achhaivar Chandra).
3. A perusal of order sheet reveals that lawyers are abstaining from work on almost every date.
4. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus can be issued only in a case where there is a statutory obligation cast upon the officer concerned and he has failed to discharge the said obligation but, at the same time, the party seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the authorities to do something, must establish before the Court that he himself has discharged the duty cast upon him before asking the authority to perform statutory obligation cast upon the latter. Reference can be made to the following authorities in this regard:-
(i) Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and another, (2008) 2 SCC 280;
(ii) Bihar Eastern Gangetic fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 145;
(iii) Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalwani Vs. N.M. Shah, AIR 1966 SC 334; and
(iv) Dr. Uma Kant Saran Vs. State of Bihar, 1973 (1) SCC 485
5. As regards strike of the lawyers, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and another, AIR, 2003 SC 736; Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409; Krishnakant Tamrakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2018 (17) SCC 27 and Hussain v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702, has already settled that it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer, who has accepted a brief, to refuse to attend the Court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council.
6. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of High Court Bar Association Allahabad vs. The State of U.P. and others (Criminal Appeal No. 3589 of 2023), decided on 29.02.2024, reported in 2024 (3) ADJ 295 (SC), has observed that no direction to dispose of cases in a time bound manner be issued by the Constitutional Courts, except in exceptional circumstances. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:-
"37. ......
a. .......
b. .......
c. Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending; and"
(emphasis supplied)
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the law referred to herein above, once it is well established on record that the lawyers are not inclined to perform their duty of appearing before the court of law and are regularly abstaining themselves from judicial work, the petitioner, who is represented by her Advocate, cannot pray for a writ of mandamus for time bound disposal of her case.
8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to persuade her lawyer to appear before the authority concerned and argue the matter.
9. If lawyers are not discharging their duty to appear before the Court, the Court/Authority concerned may allow parties to appear in person and press their case.
Order Date :- 8.5.2024
Jyotsana
