# DISOPOSAL OF CASES BY THE FAST TRACK COURTS - **Citation:** C.L. No. 28/F.T.C - **Court:** Allahabad High Court - **Decided:** 2005-08-31 - **Case number:** C.L. No. 28/F.T.C - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/disoposal-of-cases-by-the-fast-track-courts-163975 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 513 34. DISOPOSAL OF CASES BY THE FAST TRACK COURTS C.L. No. 28/F.T.C (Cell) Dated: 15th September, 2004 In continuation of Court's Endorsement No. 114/D.R. (S)/2001 dated 15.05.2001, C.L. No. 24/J.R. (I) dated 25.07.2001, C.L. No. 27/J.R. (I) dated 03.08.2002, C.L. No. 41/2003 dated 29.10.2003 and Letter No. 66/D.R. (S) dated 01.03.2004 on the above subject, I am directed to say that on consideration, the Court has been pleased to resolve that such Officer of the Fast Track Court on being short of work should inform the District Judge. In that case the District Judge concerned is authorized to allot them such other, work as he deems fit. The standard of disposal regarding cases transferred to such Fast Track Court would be the same as is applicable to the officers of the regular Court. I am therefore, to request you that the above decision of Hon'ble Court be complied with and be informed to concerned officers accordingly. 35. STRICT COMPLIANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS PASSED BY THE COURT IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT NO. 33 OF 1999 - STATE OF U.P. vs. SRI SHASHI KUMAR TYAGI C.L. No. 42/2004 Dated: 14th October, 2004 In Criminal Contempt No. 33 of 1999- State of U.P. Vs. Sri Shashi Kumar Tyagi, the Hon'ble Court ( Hon'ble M. Katju, A.C.J. and Hon'ble S. Ambwani, Judge) has taken a serious view of the matter and expressed its concern wherein the Advocate Sri Shashi Kumar Tyagi has been found guilty of gross contempt on account of behaving in a most improper manner in the court of III Addl. Civil Judge, (J.D), Ghaziabad, which was also most unbecoming of an Advocate and resultantly the Court has awarded punishment prohibiting him to enter the court compound of District Court, Ghaziabad for one year. I am, therefore, directed by the Court to send herewith a copy of the order dated 11.10.2004 passed by the Court in Criminal Contempt No. 33 of 1999- State of U.P. vs. Sri Shashi Kumar Tyagi for your information and strict compliance. (See for judgment - 2004 (50) ACC 815) C.L. No. 37/2006; Dated 10th August, 2006 The State Government of Uttar Pradesh vide letter No. 122/VI-Ma-2/2005, dated 01.08.2005 have intimated that reply in response to the notice(s) issued by the State Human Rights Commission is not sent within the time prescribed by the head of the departments concerned causing great concern to the Commission. The Government have further intimated that the Human Rights Commission is of the opinion that before passing interim aid related orders, the reply of the notices issued to the Government are not provided in time, therefore, the Commission is constrained to pass exparte orders without taking cognizance of the State Government. Sometimes, it has been found that replies of the notices issued by the Commission are not sent by the head of the departments concerned but by their subordinates, which is not proper. Therefore, while enclosing herewith a copy each of the Government letter no. Adhi-2804/VII-Nyaya-1-2005-215/2002, dated August 31, 2005 and letter No. 122/VIMa-2/2005, dated 01.08.2005, I am directed to say that contents of the letter be gone through unerringly and necessary action in compliance be ensured. 514 35-A. (I) The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009). (II) The notification giving enforcement to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 except sections 5, 6 and 21(b). (III) the notification for giving enforcement to the provisions of Sections 5, 6 and 21(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008. (IV) The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2010 (41 of 2010) (V) The notification for giving enforcement to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2010. No.1949/Admin. G-II dated 01.02.2011 I am directed to send herewith copy of letter No. 2/1/2010-Judl. Cell of Sri J.L. Chugh, Joint Secretary (Judl.), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and copies of above noted Gazette notifications for information and necessary action. ==== 515 CHAPTER - XIII LEGAL PRACTITIONERS 1. ENROLMENT OF MUKHTARS AS ADVOCATES C.L. No. 36/VII-f-187 dated 4th May, 1965 According to sections, 24 and 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the rules framed by the State Bar Council under section 24 of the said Act a Mukhtar should not ordinarily be certified to be fit for enrolment as an Advocate. In extraordinary cases, however, where the District Judge is satisfied that by reason of special ability, command on the relevant language and knowledge of the law a particular person is capable of ably conducting cases even in the High Court and the Supreme Court, he may give the necessary certificate while sending the application to the State Bar Council. C.L. No. 4/25f Admn. (D) dated 11th January, 1979 It invites attention to section 55 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, every pleader or vakil practicing as such immediately before the date on which Chapter IV of the Act (which deals with rights to practice and came into force on June 1, 1969) comes into force, by virtue of the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, if he does not elect to be, or is not qualified to be enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 shall, notwithstanding the repeal of the relevant provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 continue to enjoy the same rights as respects practice in any court or before any authority or person and shall be subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the same authority which be enjoyed or, as the case may be, to which he was subject immediately before the said date. In view of the above provision a pleader or a vakil, who was not practicing immediately before the commencement of Chapter IV of the Advocates Act, 1961 will not be entitled to practice as a pleader or a vakil thereafter. 2. MISCONDUCT G.L. No. 22 dated 18th June, 1930 (i) Legal Practitioner not to absent himself from court The letters noted in the bloc invites attention to a Resolution of the High Court, dated 17th June, 1930, pointing out that a member of the legal profession is guilty of an unprofessional act if he breaks his contract with his client and does not appear in court on any day as a protest against certain political or administrative action of the Government, the appropriate punishment for which is, at the least, suspension from practice for a considerable period. If any lawyer breaks his contract with his client and fails to present himself in court because he disapproves of some action of the Government or for any other allied irrelevant and improper reason, such lawyer will be called upon to show cause why he should not be removed from the roll or suspended from practice.