GH RASOOL MALIK Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the very out set, it needs to be no ­ticed that this petition had come up for consid ­eration on 15.03.2001, 27.03.2001 and 29.03.2001 but had to be adjourned due to non -appearance of the counsel for the petitioner who had abstained from the work because of the strike of the Bar as contended by the petitioner. On 04.04.2001 it was again adjourned in hope of appearance of the counsel for the petitioner. The petition was listed on 23.04.2001 and the following order was passed: -

(2.) THE petitioners counsel did not enter appearance. Be it placed on record that the petitioner had sought further adjournment, for, his advocate had expressed inability to appear because of strike of the Bar. The prayer was opposed by LC for the respondents as also by the affected party. It is appropriate to notice that an ad interim direction, passed in favour of the petitioner, has undoubtedly the effect of stall ­ing the implementation of the order of posting made by the Government in favour of Dr.Ghulam Nabi War. The said Doctor (here ­inafter applicant for brevity) sought vacation of the ad interim direction through CMP 2370/ 2000. It needs to be noticed that by order dated 23.04.2001, the ad interim direction is enforce ­able till disposal of the writ petition. This be ­ing the position, the prayer for adjournment, if allowed would automatically protect the life of the ad interim direction. That apart law is set ­tled that non -appearance of the counsel cannot come in the way of the court and the court is within its powers to proceed ahead notwith ­standing such non appearance. No doubt, for justifiable reasons, adjournments may be granted, but question arises whether the court is obliged to adjourn a case because of the strike call given by the Bar. To answer the question it is advantageous to refer to the judicial pro ­nouncement handed down by the apex court in Raman Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Subash Kapoor (AIR 2000 SC 207) (para 28):

(3.) APPLYING the judgment supra there re ­mains no scope to accomodate the striking law ­yers by granting adjournments and being alive to the mandate of the judgment this court had no option but to decline further adjournment to the petitioner and the petition was taken up for final hearing.