HARI SHYAM SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's filed the writ petition, challenging the order of termination of his services, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (S.C. Verma, J.) on 30/1/1996. A review application was filed by the petitioner and before the review petition could be heard, the wife of the petitioner sent a telegram petition saying that in the absence of final decision in the writ petition aforesaid, her two daughters have already died out of starvation and now it is their turn and, therefore, on 24/10/2001, they would immolate themselves in front of the Hon'ble Chief Justice's residence. The said telegram was placed on record and the case was listed after noting of the Registrar on 18.10.01. On 18.10.01, the lawyers were abstaining from work, in response to a call of U.P. Bar Council for boycotting the Courts upto 23/10/2001. The Court was informed by the learned counsel for the State that in a petition filed at Allahabad before the Division Bench presided by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, an order was passed, staying the resolution dated 13th October, 2001, by means of which the U.P. Bar Council had resolved that the lawyers shall boycott the Court till 23/10/2001. Under the aforesaid circumstances I proceeded to consider the review application on merits with the assistance of the learned State Counsel and on going through the record. No request for adjournment was made either from the side of the petitioner nor the petitioner was present on the said date. On perusal of the record and the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the review application was considered and was dismissed. After the dismissal of the review application, the application for recall of the aforesaid order was first moved on 24/11/2001 saying that since the order was passed by the Court during the period of strike, therefore, the same be recalled. Subsequent applications were also given to the same effect.

(2.) I may put on record that in the meantime, the petitioner, through his wife, again sent telegrams and lastly a telegram, which is on record, has been received in the High Court on 24/4/2006 saying that in the absence of final hearing in the present writ petition, despite efforts being made, the applicant (Smt. Geeta Devi wife of Sri Hari Shyam Srivastava i.e. the petitioner) is on the verge of starvation and, therefore, they would go on hunger strike till death in the High Court premises from 30.4.06. The case is again listed today before this Court. Prior to today's date, the application was listed earlier also. The order sheet reveals about listing of the case/application and adjournments.

(3.) The repeated telegrams sent by the petitioner's wife incorrectly mention that the writ petition has not been decided and is pending final hearing, whereas the fact of the matter is that the writ petition stood decided as far back as in the year 1996. The record also reveals that the application for recall of my order dated 18.10.01 filed on 18.11.03 is the third application during pendency of the two applications, which were filed earlier, including the application dated 24.11.01. The said application was listed number of times and was got adjourned. On 13.7.05, it was adjourned on the adjournment slip of the counsel for the petitioner, as he was ill. The Court passed the order dated 13.7.05 taking note of the telegram sent in May, 2005 by Smt. Geeta Devi wife of the petitioner, saying that the pending application for recall of the order be heard immediately, failing which the wife of the petitioner shall sit on hunger strike in front of the Judge's residence. By an order of the Senior Judge, the matter was directed to be listed in the first week of July, 2005. The Court took note of the aforesaid events but since adjournment slip was honoured, the case was adjourned again with the direction to be listed as early as possible.