JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner's filed the writ petition, challenging the order of termination of his services, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (S.C. Verma, J.) on 30.1.96. A review application was filed by the petitioner and before the review petition could be heard, the wife of the petitioner sent a telegram petition saying that in the absence of final decision in the writ petition aforesaid, her two daughters have already died out of starvation and now it is their turn and, therefore, on 24.10.01, they would immolate themselves in front of the Hon'ble Chief Justice's residence. The said telegram was placed on record and the case was listed after noting of the Registrar on 18.10.01. On 18.10.01, the lawyers were abstaining from work, in response to a call of U.P. Bar Council for boycotting the Courts upto 23.10.01. The Court was informed by the learned counsel for the State that in a petition filed at Allahabad before the Division Bench presided by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, an order was passed, staying the resolution dated 13th October, 2001, by means of which the U.P. Bar Council had resolved that the lawyers shall boycott the Court till 23.10.01. Under the aforesaid circumstances I proceeded to consider the review application on merits with the assistance of the learned State Counsel and on going through the record. No request for adjournment was made either from the side of the petitioner nor the petitioner was present on the said date.
2. On perusal of the record and the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the review application was considered and was dismissed. After the dismissal of the review application, the application for recall of the aforesaid order was first moved on 24.11.01 saying that since the order was passed by the Court during the period of strike, therefore, the same be recalled. Subsequent applications were also given to the same effect.
3. I may put on record that in the meantime, the petitioner, through his wife, again sent telegrams and lastly a telegram, which is on record, has been received in the High Court on 24.4.06 saying that in the absence of final hearing in the present writ petition, despite efforts being made, the applicant (Smt. Geeta Devi wife of Sri Hari Shyam Srivastava i.e. the petitioner) is on the verge of starvation and, therefore, they would go on hunger strike till death in the High Court premises from 30.4.06. The case is again listed today before this Court. Prior to today's date, the application was listed earlier also. The order sheet reveals about listing of the case/application and adjournments.
4. The repeated telegrams sent by the petitioner's wife incorrectly mention that the writ petition has not been decided and is pending final hearing, whereas the fact of the matter is that the writ petition stood decided as far back as in the year 1996. The record also reveals that the application for recall of my order dated 18.10.01 filed on 18.11.03 is the third application during pendency of the two applications, which were filed earlier, including the application dated 24.11.01.
5. The said application was listed number of times and was got adjourned. On 13.7.05, it was adjourned on the adjournment slip of the counsel for the petitioner, as he was ill. The Court passed the order dated 13.7.05 taking note of the telegram sent in May, 2005 by Smt. Geeta Devi wife of the petitioner, saying that the pending application for recall of the order be heard immediately, failing which the wife of the petitioner shall sit on hunger strike in front of the Judge's residence. By an order of the Senior Judge, the matter was directed to be listed in the first week of July, 2005. The Court took note of the aforesaid events but since adjournment slip was honoured, the case was adjourned again with the direction to be listed as early as possible.
6. The facts on record disclose that the writ petition was dismissed as far back as on 30.1.96. The review application was also dismissed on 18.10.01 and thereafter again the petitioner, instead of approaching his remedy in the appropriate forum, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ petition, or in the review application passed by me, filed these applications, three in number, for recalling the order passed on the review application. The order in the writ petition as well as the review application has been passed after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and pleadings of the parties. Merely because the lawyers or the counsel appearing for the petitioner felt some difficulty in appearing before the Court, because of a call of strike by the U.P. Bar Association, it cannot make a ground for recall of the order. The apex court in the case of Harish Uppal v. Union of India AIR 2003 Supreme Court 739, observed as under:
An Advocate is an officer of the Court and enjoys special status in society. Advocates have obligations and duties to ensure smooth functioning of the Court. They owe a duty to their client. Strikes interfere with administration of justice. They cannot thus disrupt Court proceedings and put interest of their clients in jeopardy.
7. Likewise in the case of Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. , the Supreme Court observed as under:
No Court is obliged to adjourn a case because of the strike call given by any association of advocates or a decision to boycott the courts either in general or any particular court. It is the solemn duty of every court to proceed with the judicial business during court hours. No court should yield to pressure tactics or boycott calls or any kind of browbeating.
Both the Bench and the Bar are the two inextricable wings of the judicial forum and therefore the aforesaid mutual respect is the sine qua non for the efficient functioning of the solemn work carried on in courts of law. But that does not mean that any advocate or a group of them can boycott the courts or does not mean that any advocate or a group of them can boycott the courts or any particular court and ask the court to avoid a case on the ground that he does not want to appear in that court.
8. Similar view has been taken by the apex court in the case of Ramom Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor and Ors. (2001) 1 S.C.C. 118, wherein the Court observed that '...When the advocate engaged by a party is on strike there is no obligation on the part of the Court either to wait or to adjourn the case on that account. Time and again the Supreme Court has said that an advocate has no right to stall the court proceedings on the ground that advocates have decided to strike or to boycott the courts or even boycott any particular court.
9. Apart from the aforesaid facts that the petitioner's lawyer did not appear because of the call of strike by the Bar Association, or may be because of his personal difficulties, mere absence of a lawyer for any reason whatsoever would not automatically or necessarily be a ground for recall of the order, unless some apparent illegality or manifest error of law or fact is shown in the order. The applications do not indicate any such reason. I, therefore, do not find any reason for recalling my order dated 18.10.01. Before parting, I would like to put on record that the constant practice of the petitioner or his wife of sending telegrams with a threat of self immolation or hunger strike till death, cannot be appreciated and cannot be a legal means for getting the cases decided in the Court, though in the present case, factual assertions made in the telegrams were also not found to be correct, in as much as, that the writ petition already stands decided long back, a reference of which is always made in the telegrams.
10. The Registrar, on receipt of one of the several telegrams, on 20.9.05 wrote a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, bringing to his notice the threat of committing suicide in front of the residence of the Judge, with a request for making suitable security arrangements to avoid any mis-happening and also sent a notice on 22.9.05 to the wife of the petitioner Smt. Geeta Devi saying that the case was listed before the Court on 4.7.05, 7.7.05 and 13.7.05 but the counsel did not appear and, therefore, she was advised not to send such telegrams in future and to approach the counsel to get the case decided. It was also cautioned that in case such threatening telegrams are sent in future, the same would be viewed seriously and suitable action will be taken against her. Despite the aforesaid information and caution being given, telegram has been sent, which is on record. The Court views her action with absolute seriousness. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner and his wife appear to be ill advised in the matter of pursuing the remedy in the Court of law, which appears to be their own perception, I refrain from ordering any action against the petitioner and his wife. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant has submitted that he may be given liberty to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ petition and the order passed in the review application by filing a special appeal or approaching such other forum, as may be available. So far the right to challenge an order passed by the learned Single Judge is concerned, it is always open to the party aggrieved, for which no direction is needed, to challenge the same in appropriate forum in accordance with law. All the applications for recall of the order dated 18.10.01, passed on the review application, are rejected.