JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. This is an application for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed by me for want of prosecution on 9.1.2003. The order dated 9.1.2003 is as under: -
"The lawyers have gone on lightning strike disturbing the court proceedings. List has been revised. Since none appears to press this writ petition the same is dismissed for non-prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated."
3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that he could not appear due to strike of lawyers on 9.1.2003 and he had no knowledge about the order dated 9.1.2003 till 3.1.2005 when he came to Allahabad with regard to different cases of the unit and made enquiry from the Computer Section about the present case and came to know that the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 9.1.2003. He further submits that the delay was not intentional and there was no knowledge about the order and restoration application has been moved on 6.1.2005 without further delay when he acquired knowledge that the writ petition was dismissed on 9.1.2003.
4. On 4.12.2002 the case was passed over on the request of the counsel for the petitioner and was ordered to be listed in the next cause list. Thereafter the case came up on the list on 9.1.2003 when the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thus, the restoration application has been moved after a lapse of two years.
5. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court that the lawyers' strikes are illegal and that effective steps should be taken to stop the growing tendency to go on strikes as they have no right to go on strike. If a lawyer, holding a Vakalatnama of a client, abstains from attending court due to a strike call, he puts himself to personal risk and liability for any action that may be taken by his client.
6. In Pandurang Duttatravs Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra (1984) 2 SCC-556, Tahil Ram Issar Das Sadarangarn v. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangam (1993) (3) SCC 256; Common Clause A. Registered Society v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 19; Sanjeev Dutta v. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting ( 1995)3 SCC 619; Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice v. Bar Council of India 1995(1) SCC 732; K. Jhon Koshi v. Dr. Tarakeshwar Prasad Shaw (1998) 8 SCC 624; Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation (P)Ltd. 1999 (1) SCC 37 and Ex. Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC-45 it was held by the Supreme Court that the advocates have no right to go on strike and the Courts are under no obligation to adjourn the cases on the board because lawyers are on strike. The Courts are not to be privy to such strikes which amounts to denial of justice to the litigants.
7. The judiciary is accountable to the public and the dispensation of justice cannot be stopped for any reason including strike by lawyers. The apex court has held that right to speedy justice is included in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In A.R.Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225 and Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, (1998) 7 SCC 507, it was held that the litigant has a right to speedy justice.
8. Similarly in Manoj Kumar v. Civil Judge, Deoria (Writ Petition No. 33778 of 1997 decided on 10.10.97), the Division Bench of this Court has held that:
"Before parting with this case, we would like to mention that it is deeply regrettable and highly objectionble that there are strikes in District Courts in U.P. in flimsy and frivolous pretexts and some District Courts function only for about 60 or 70 days in a year. This is a shocking state of affairs and will no longer be tolerated by this Court. The judiciary and bar are both accountable to the public and they must behave in a resonable manner so that cases are decided quickly and thus the faith of the public in the judiciary is maintained. Surely, the public has a right to expect this from us."
9. The same view is followed in Suresh Chandra Varshney & Co. v. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No. 15342 of 2000 decided on 30.3.2000) and Siddartha Kumar v. Upper Civil Judge, Ghazipur, (1998) 1 UPLBEC 587.
10. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the delay in moving the restoration application was not intentional has no force as the clerk of his office ought to have noted the orders passed during the strike period. He could have inspected the file even after the strike was over. No sufficient cause and cogent reasons have been given for restoration of the writ petition. The application for restoration has been moved on 6.1.2005. It suffers from laches due to callous attitude of the petitioner.
11. The facts of this case are covered by the decision rendered by me while deciding Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 164294 of 2004 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13271 of 1986 (Smt. Beena Rani Garg and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Education, Region I, Meerut and Ors.).
12. For the reasons stated above, the restoration application is rejected.