ORDER

The present file contains Vakalatnama filed by the respondents by online mode. Vakalatnama was filed on 19.8.2023. It neither contains Adhivakta Kalyan Nidhi nor the court fees. The original Vakalatnama has not been filed. As per the High Court Rules even if the documents have been filed by online mode then still filing of original documents is necessary. The cause list was prepared on 10.5.2024 but the concerning D.A. Shri Subhash Nagle did not point out the default that original Vakalatnama has not been filed and online Vakalatnama does not contain the requisite court fees/Adhivakta Kalyan Nidhi. Even the Office Superintendent Smt. Sangeeta Das appears to be negligent in discharging her duties and she is not keeping a watch over the activities of the Dealing Clerks who are working under her.

2. Accordingly, Registrar General is directed to seek explanation from Shri Nagle and Smt. Das and to take action as per law.

3. After the abovementioned direction, Shri Nagle continued to give explanation and thus his conduct is intolerable. Accordingly, proceedings be initiated against him for misbehaviour in the Court.

4. Also heard on merits.

5. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

“It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be allow the application filed by applicant and set aside the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by Smt.

Tripati Pandey the 14th ASJ Bhopal in criminal appeal no. 305/2022 (Smt. Neha Jain Vs. Rahul Jain and others) wherein confirm the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by Smt. Ankita Shrivastava Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class Bhopal in MJC R No. 2991/2019, in the interest of justice.”

6. At the beginning, counsel for respondent sought time to file reply. The counsel for respondents had filed his Vakalatnama on 19.08.2023 and from thereafter neither the original Vakalatnama was filed nor any steps have been taken by respondent to file their response. Whenever, a respondent enters his appearance, then it is always expected that he or they shall file their response immediately and respondent cannot withhold the reply under an impression that unless and until a specific direction is given, he or she or they are not liable to file any response. The notices are always issued to take their defence and not for seeking adjournments. Further, in the case of Nandu @ Gandharva Singh Vs. Ratiram Yadav and others , by order dated 09.1.2019 passed in M.P.No.1887/2017, seeking for unnecessary adjournment has been held to be professional misconduct.

7. This Court in the case of Nandu @ Gandharva Singh (supra) has held as under :- . “For the lapses on the part of the counsel for respondent no.1 or respondent no.1 himself, this Court cannot keep the matter pending unnecessarily and specifically when the counsel for respondent no.1 is not ready to take the responsibility of delay in decision of the petition, then the counsel for respondent no.1 has no authority either legally or morally to make prayer for adjournment. The Supreme Court in the case of N.G. Dastane Vs. Shrikant S. Shinde reported in (2001) 6 SCC 135 has held as under : <br/>

“17. In Black’s Law Dictionary “misconduct” is defined as:

“A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour; its synonyms are misdemeanour, misdeed, misbehaviour, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offence, but not negligence or carelessness.”

18. The expression “professional misconduct” was attempted to be defined by Darling, J., in A Solicitor, ex p, Law Society, in re in the following terms:

“If it is shown that an advocate in the pursuit of his profession has done something with regard to it which would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by his professional brethren of good