Justice hurried is justice burried. This is an old legal maxim which, over and above court practices and procedures, has served, and should serve, us as a guiding caution in the process of dispensation of justice. It would be apt to the context to recall to ourselves that we, as Judges, have plentitude of judicial power in all matters concerning the general administration of justice. This power enables us to exercise control over process by regulating proceedings, by preventing abuse of process and, if necessary, by compelling observance of the process. Such jurisdiction, as a Court of Justice, may be invoked or exercised not only in relation to parties in pending proceedings, but in relation to any one, whether a party or not. We are supposedly immune from committing errors, mistakes or wrongs. We, as judges, know our absolute privileges: we have a freedom from action and question.

2. All this -the jurisdiction, the plentitude of powers the immunity and above all the freedom- not much for our sake as for the sake of the public; for advancement of justice: so as to be free in thought and the process of judgment making, that is, administration of justice. When we talk of dispensation or administration of "justice"; the word partakes and embraces the broad principles of providing a fair, reasonable and just opportunity of hearing and of defending, i. e., observance of principles of natural justice. After all, we are entrusted with the most onerous task of hearing and determining the issues before us. And when facts are in issue, the cardinal principle of justice is that no man should be condemned on mere suspicion, presumptions and, above all, without affording him an opportunity of being heard. Given the plentitude of powers, the privileges, immunity, and the freedoms, it legally behooves of us not to give to a person or a litigating party a cause to urge before a higher forum, by insistent reference to dates of proceedings, the proceedings conducted in a case and culmination of the process within a short span of period of less than a month, more so during vacations in one case and in twelve days in other case and concerning public property valuing Crores of rupees, to put across, though mincingly, that process was hurriedly burried, shrouded in mystery and, that too, without reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing. Proceedings in question may be referred to. Writ petition, titled Bhag Din and Anr. v. State of J&K and Ors. and registered as OWP No. 11/2003, was presented before the Registry of this Court during winter vacation on 14th January, 2003. The Petition came up before the learned Vacation Judge on 14th January, 2003 itself and the following order came to be passed:

" Mr. Gagan Basotra, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Vide judgment of the court dated 22.5.1995 delivered in OWP No. 421/94, State was directed to allot alternate land in exchange or to pay compensation to the petitioners for the land restored to them, situate at Top-Sherkhanian, Jammu possession of which could not be delivered to the petitioners. Judgment was appealed by means of LPA (W) No. 291/95 which came to be dismissed on 30.8.2000. Respondents vide Govt. Order No. Rev(LB) 183 of 2002 dated 17.9.2002 have accorded sanction for transfer of 15 Kanals of Sarkar Land comprising Survey No. 533 situated in village Paloura Tehsil Jammu to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents are not delivering the possession to the petitioners in implementation of the judgment of the court on the pretext that Nishandei is required to be conducted. The judgment of the court cannot be avoided on this pretext and is required to be implemented. Registry to issue bailable warrants in a sum of Rs. 1000 of respondents No. 3 to 5 to be present before the court to explain their conduct as to why the judgment of the court has not been complied with. In case compliance report is filed, they need not to appe