RAGHAVENDRAPRABHAKAR JOSHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSIDERING the seriousness of the matter and dignity of the legal profession, we are constrained to decide this petition, at this stage, itself.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel on both the sides. We have perused the proceedings. We have also gone through the order passed by the earlier Division Bench (A. P. Shah and R. K. Batta, JJ.) on 13th December, 2002, at the time of hearing of the petition.

(3.) THE learned A. G. P. has prayed for an adjournment on the ground that he has not received any instructions in the matter inspite of the order dated 13th December, 2002 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. We are not inclined to grant the prayer of the learned A. G. P. for adjournment, as it is crystal clear from the proceedings and from the conduct of the State Government that it not only wants to lower the dignity of this noble profession by ill-treating their own Special Public Prosecutor but also by defying the order passed by this Court on 13th December, 2002. We have, therefore, refused to adjourn the matter on the ground that the learned A. G. P. is awaiting instructions from the Desk Clerk sitting in the Mantralaya. The period from 13th December, 2002 till this date is more than enough to comply with the order passed by this Court. In fact, we are constrained to observe that the State Government is in contempt of the order passed by this Court and, we take judicial notice of such unbearable conduct on the part of the State Government, under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. According to us, the conduct of the State Government in defying the order passed by this Court has to be seriously deprecated. It is very significant to note that as yet even affidavit-in-reply by way of return is not filed to controvert the factual averments or allegations made by the petitioner in the petition. For all these reasons, we have decided to take-up this matter peremptory at this stage, to be decided finally.