IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN ad -interim direction came to be passed by the Writ Court on 10 -09 -2001 directing the parties to maintain status quo on the spot as it existed then leaving the aggrieved party free to seek amendment/alteration. The respondents 5 & 6 before the Writ Court (applicants herein) have challenged the judgment by medium of this LPA. Their case is that the direction was not extended on the next date because of non appearance of the counsel for the petitioner and on subsequent dates also it was not extended for one or the other reason. Matter came up for consideration on 02 -03 -2002 before the Writ Court when on Mr. Ghulam Jeelani Advocate appeared for the petitioner. After having heard him the court restrained the respondents from raising construction on the spot with further directing to maintain status quo till further orders. Contention of Mr. Qayoom is that since the direction was not extended on earlier occasions, therefore, the Court could not have passed the direction on 02 -03 -2002. The argument is not well founded because operation of the earlier direction was not restricted up to any particular date, yet let us assume it so what when. There is no prohibition in law which would prevent the Writ Court from passing interim directions ancillary to the main relief so as to do substantial justice between the parties notwithstanding the fact that the direction granted at the very inception was not extended on subsequent date/dates. The contention being unsustainable in law fails.

(2.) COMING to the dispute raised by Mr. Qayoom about appearance of Mr. Ghulam Jeelani on the ground that there is no Advocate of such name who represented the petitioners, suffice it to say that presumption of correctness is attached to the order of the Court. Nonetheless, record of the Writ Court was sent for. On its perusal we find that respondents have filed two vakalatnamas one given to Mr. A.R. Bhat and another to Mr. Ghulam Jeelani which form part of the writ record. This being the factual position the contention of Mr. Qayoom is belied by the record. Obviously, there appears an endeavour to attribute default to the court. This is an act for which an Advocate is answerable, however, to say the least instead of stretching the matter we take an exception to the contention and hope that such argument is not pressed for consideration in future so that high professional standards of ethics and mortality and Advocate is expected to adhere to are maintained.

(3.) MR . Qayoom also contended that even if it is assumed that there is an Advocate by the name of Mr. Ghulam Jeelani yet he could not have appeared, for, the lawyers had abstained from work because of strike call on 02 -03 -2002 that is the date when order under challenge was passed. We would like to examine this argument in the light of the judgment of the apex court in Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Subhash Kapoor (AIR 2001 SC 207) para 27 may be extracted: