Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Pursuant to charge framed against petitioners and their counsel, Sri Prabha Shankar Pandey, vide this Court's order dated 5.11.2012, Sri Anil Tiwari, Advocate, has appeared and has filed two applications and affidavits.

2. One application is by Sri Prabha Shankar Pandey, Advocate, who is representing petitioners, supported with an affidavit dated 18.11.2012 tendering his apology for the averments made in para 6 of writ petition and requesting to drop the criminal contempt proceedings.

3. The second application supported with an affidavit is on behalf of petitioners with the same statement i.e. tendering apology.

4. Proceedings were initiated in view of averments made by petitioners, through their counsel Prabha Shankar Pandey, in para 6 of writ petition, which reads as under:

"6. That the Presiding Officer Shambhu Nath Saroj is X-cadre Judge is also belongs to Scheduled Caste Reserved Category, hence the said presiding officer is not competent to appreciate the arguments in regard to declaring the jurisdiction of maintainability of the suit under Section 59 of U.P. Tenancy Act. The petitioners/appellants moved an application under Section 24 Cr.P.C. on the ground of incompetency of the presiding officer and another ground was also taken by the petitioners/appellants in their transfer application that the presiding officer belongs to Scheduled Caste by Caste Saroj and that the respondent No. 2 is also by caste Saroj that's why the intimacy has been developed in between Smt. Shushila Devi Saroj. It has been shouted by the respondent no. 2 in her Mohalla that she will win the case without any doubt. A true and photostat copy of the transfer application is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition."

5. Though there are other paragraphs in the writ petition also, not made part of the charge as such, but, have been drafted making scurrilous allegations against the Presiding Judicial Officer of the subordinate Court. In para 9, the noticees have stated:

"...petitioners have taken a ground of incompetency of the presiding officer x-Cadre ..."

6. Similarly in para 10 of writ petition, it has been said:

"..the x-cadre Additional District Judge is not able to consider the averment"

7. What has pained this Court is that an Officer of subordinate Court has been sought to be castigated and condemned for the reason of caste to which he belong and also that he is an Addl. District Judge (X-cadre). When I asked the learned counsel, who has drafted writ petition, as to whether caste of a person can guarantee about his competence and merit etc., he did not reply straightway but said that the averments have been made in the writ petition based on his own individual assessment of the Officer concerned since he himself appeared before the concerned Presiding Officer in the Court below and, therefore, these averments are based on his personal knowledge. This is why and looking to the above conduct of petitioners and their counsel, I passed the order dated 5.11.2012 and proceedings commenced, pursuant whereto Sri Anil Tiwari, Advocate appeared and stated at the bar that there is no defence in the case in hand. The error is glaring and serious. On behalf of petitioners as well as the Advocate concerned, affidavits tendering apology have been filed and he (Anil Tiwari) is also praying for mercy to them.

8. The justice delivery system knows no caste, religion, creed, colour etc. It is a system following principle of black and white. Whatever is unfair, that is identified and given its due treatment and whatever is good is retained. Whoever suffers injustice is attempted to be given justice and that is called dispensation of justice. The prevailing system of dispensation of justice in Country, presently, has different tiers. At the ground level, the Courts are commonly known as "Subordinate Judiciary" and they form basis of administration of justice. Sometimes it is said that subordinate judiciary forms ver

Click Here to Read the rest of this document