Back
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Amlawati – Appellant
Versus
Mahatma Singh, Sub Divisional Officer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants.
2. The applicants before this Court had approached the Writ Court through Writ-C No.18129 of 2021, wherein on 09.08.2021 the opposite party was required to decide the proceedings of the Suit, within a period of three months.
3. The order-sheet which has been brought on record as Annexure 3 to the application demonstrates the fact that not even on single occasion from 11.08.2021 to 17.05.2022, the Tehsil Court has functioned. On all the occasions, the judicial work had suffered on the count that the lawyers are abstaining from judicial work.
4. This Court takes note of the fact that on one hand, the writ petitions are filed seeking the direction for early disposal of the revenue proceedings which are pending for a quite long time before the Revenue Court, while lawyers practising at Tehsil level in various districts of the State are mostly on strike. When the order of the writ Court is not adhered by the Officers of the Revenue Department, who are performing the judicial work, the contempt proceedings are initiated against them.
5. I find that this Court cannot proceed to punish the Officers under the contempt jurisdiction as it is
Lawyers have a duty to attend trial, and strikes interfere with the administration of justice. Courts are obligated to hear and decide cases, and lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call ....
Lawyers have a duty to ensure the smooth functioning of the court and cannot disrupt court proceedings. Strikes interfere with the administration of justice and are against the duty of lawyers as off....
Lawyers have no right to strike, as established by the Supreme Court, and any such action will be treated as criminal contempt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Bar Council's call for strike was illegal and unconstitutional, and lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott....
Disobedience of court orders by advocates constitutes grounds for contempt, leading to potential consequences including dismissal of appeals for lack of prosecution.
The call to abstain from court work by the Bar Council violates statutory rights and Supreme Court directives.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of courts to ensure expeditious trials and take action against striking lawyers for professional misconduct and contempt of court, highlig....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
