RAVINDRA KUMAR Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE BIKAPUR FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Onkar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as also Shri Prashant Singh 'Atal' and Shri Akhilesh Awasthi, Vice Chairman and Member respectively of the Bar Council of U.P. and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) This is a case where the petitioner has approached this Court seeking expeditious disposal of the proceedings under Section 122-B(4)(F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, however, when the Court peruses the true copy of the order sheet annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition it finds that out of 22 dates fixed in the matter on 19 dates the lawyers had abstained from work obviously on account of some call by the local Bar Association of which lawyers are members. This is not the first case where such a scenario has presented itself before this Court. Both Shri 'Atal' and Shri Awasthi had been called earlier also for assistance of the Court in similar matters pertaining to other Tehsils and with the use of their good offices the matter could be resolved, however, the Court finds in almost every revenue Court at all levels the local Bar Association casually passes resolution for abstaining from work on some pretext or the other at the drop of a hat with the result that the proceedings pending before the said Courts get adjourned in a very casual and routine manner. As already observed in the earlier orders passed by this Court in other matters viz Writ Petition No. 8902(M/S) of 2019; Ram Pal Verma Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Akbarpur, Ambedkar Nagar and Ors., Writ Petition No. 8784(M/S) of 2019; Kunwar Mohit Singh and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. and Writ Petition No. 6788(M/S) of 2019; Ram Prakash Vs. Naib Tehsildar, Jahangirganj, Alapur, Ambedkar Nagar and Ors. This is not how the justice dispensation system should function nor can it function effectively in such a work environment. The system of justice dispensation which we have is one where, in order to succeed, it has to receive full co-operation from the lawyers concerned. The lawyers having been engaged by the litigants have an obligation towards them to appear in the matter whenever the same is listed unless of course in exceptional circumstances they are not able to do so and have to file an application for adjournment but to pass resolutions for abstaining form work en-masse in such a manner not on one or two dates but repeatedly as in this case and as has also been noticed in other matters referred earlier, is unacceptable. If this is permitted it would jeopardize the functioning of the judicial system and irreparably erode the faith of the common litigant in it. In this context, the Bar Council of U.P. has an important role to play, as, it is a statutory body which is empowered to regulate the functioning of lawyers and their conduct in the Court and outside also.

(3.) Shri Prashant Singh 'Atal', Vice Chairman of the Bar Council of U.P. have made a statement at the Bar as also Shri Akhilesh Awasthi, Member of the Bar Council, that they will take up the matter in the Bar Council itself and some positive and effective steps shall be taken so that in future the Bar Associations attached to the Revenue Courts at various Tehsils do not pass such resolutions and if they do then effective remedial measures can be taken as, after all, the accountability of all involved in the judicial system including the lawyers has to be fixed and the system can not be allowed to degenerate merely because those involved in the justice dispensation system do not co-operate and are not conscious of their obligations towards the litigants.