1. At the very out set, it needs to be no­ticed that this petition had come up for consid­eration 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:-

"The petitioner, and learned counsel for the State were heard on 04.04.2001. However, it was adjourned to this day in hope of appear­ance of learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel is not present. Mr.M.H.Attar submits that the petitioner has obtained an ad interim direction by supression of material facts. He, therefore, prays for vacation of the direction. One Dr. Gh.Nabi War has been posted in place of the petitioner as S.D.O. He submits that the interim directioin has the effect of staying his order of posting also. He, therefore, prays for modification of the order to enable him to join at Handwara in consequence to Govt. order No.91-ASH of 2000 dated: 15.09.2000. Con­sidering the nature of the controversy I am of the opinion that it will be in the interests of justice to decide the main petition. Till then the interim direction has to remain in force. Writ petition is admitted to hearing. Mr.M.H Attar adopts the reply already filed by him to the admissibility of the writ petition as counter. The petitioner has produced photostat copies of three documents which are also taken on record to be read as rejoinder. The petition to come up on 25.04.2001 for final arguments. The pe­titioner is directed to cause the appearance of his counsel for arguments."

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 stall­ing the implementation of the order of posting made by the Government in favour of Dr.Ghulam Nabi War. The said Doctor (here­inafter 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 enforce­able till disposal of the writ petition. This be­ing the position, the prayer for adjournment, if allowed would automatically protect the life of the ad interim direction. That apart law is set­tled that non-appearance of the counsel cannot come in the way of the court and the court is within its powers to proceed ahead notwith­standing 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 pro­nouncement handed down by the apex court in Raman Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Subash Kapoor (AIR 2000 SC 207) (para 28):

"The courts were sympathising with the Bar by not agreeing to dismiss the cases for de­fault of appearance of the striking advocates. Some courts might have conducted the cases even during the strike or boycott pe­riods or adjourned due to helplessness for not being in a position to decide the lis in the absence of the counsel but majority of the courts in the country have been impliedly sympathisers by not rising to the occasion by taking positive stand for the preservation of the high traditions of law and for continued restoration of the confi­dence of the common man in the institution of judiciary, it is not too late even now for the courts in the country to rise from the slumber and perform their duties without fear or favour particularly after the judg­ment of cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document