# Raj Bahadur and others v. Commissioner, Agra Division Agra and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 701
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-12
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29571 of 2000
- **Bench:** Amitava Lala, Sanjay Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-bahadur-and-others-v-commissioner-agra-division-agra-and-others-40573
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Practice
and Procedure-Adjournment illness slip
of counsel-fourth time illness-court has
no option except to proceed with the
matter-court can ignore such illness slip
to present the abuse of process of courtthe Advocates are the part and partial of
the institution-not only as the officer of
the court but also as minister of the
courts-hence can be called upon to
discharge their duty as per with judge
putting illness slip indefinitely coursing
difficulty to his own fellow memberscourt expressed its great concern.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1990 SC-3080

## Text

2 All] Raj Bahadur and others V. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra and others
701
8. In the present case the charge
sheet has already been laid in court
against the present applicants and, from
the material on record of the case, it can
not be said that no offence disclosed at all
against the present applicants. On the
contrary there is more than sufficient
evidence available against the accused to
summon them. On the own showing of
the applicants the witnesses have stated
that they have given affidavits and
statement, favourable to the accused,
under section 164 Cr.P.C. on the basis of
compromise reached between them out
side the court. The said compromise is not
lawful and has got no sanctity of law. It is
only an arrangement between the parties,
which is void and illegal in view of
Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act
such a compromise is against the
provision of the 'code and cannot be
commentated. Thus is cannot be said that
the witnesses have resiled and have
denied their earlier statement anointing
offence against the present applicants.
Their revengeful gesture will not absolve
the accused from the crime committed by
them. Hence the contention of the counsel
for the applicant is devoid of any merit
and deserves to be rejected and is
rejected.

9. This application is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJAY MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29571 of 2000

Raj Bahadur and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Commissioner, Agra Division Agra and
others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners;
Sri N.S. Chaudhary
Ansu Chaudhary

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.R. Singh Jadaun
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Practice
and Procedure-Adjournment illness slip
of counsel-fourth time illness-court has
no option except to proceed with the
matter-court can ignore such illness slip
to present the abuse of process of courtthe Advocates are the part and partial of
the institution-not only as the officer of
the court but also as minister of the
courts-hence can be called upon to
discharge their duty as per with judge
putting illness slip indefinitely coursing
difficulty to his own fellow memberscourt expressed its great concern.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1990 SC-3080

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J.)

1. This High Court possess unique
system of obtaining adjournments on
account of purported illness. One can
handover a slip to the officer of the Court
and gets adjournment as a matter of
course. No matter how many occasion it
is. This is the fourth occasion when illness
702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
slip has been produced in such manner.
So far as the first, second and third illness
slips are concerned, we have already
granted time making certain observations
so that one can engage fresh counsel or
make alternative arrangement in the
meantime particularly when a counsel
seems to be perpetually ill on the basis of
the illness slips. Observation was made by
the Court irrespective of engagement of
more than one counsel in the matter.
Inspite of the same if time is sought in
fourth occasion then the Court cannot
have any other alternative but to proceed
with the matter. We can not have any
conflict with the judgement of the
Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 SC
3080 (Rais Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and
others). Such judgement speaks about
tradition of the Court to which we can not
have any difference of opinion. Leaving
aside that part, factually solitary absence
of the learned Counsel on the day of
disposal of the matter in merit and further
dismissal of the restoration application in
connection thereto was the subject matter
therein. Can it be said factual position is
similar with that matter. Our answer is
"No". Observation of the Supreme Court
is made for the purpose of convenience of
the Bench and Bar and in respect of
cordial relationship amongst themselves
but not for their inconvenience. Inspite of
best effort if inconvenience is made to
another set of counsels who are eager to
get early disposal of the matters, one can
not take advantage of such Supreme Court
judgement. If no check and balance is
made it will be treated to be greatest
amount of abuse of process of Court of
law. Court runs on two prospectives.
Either it will run for the ends of the
justice or it will run to prevent the abuse
of process of Court of law. Therefore, this
Court feels when one is perpetually ill
time to be given to take the alternative
measure without making any departure
from the principle as laid down by the
Supreme Court. In the occasion, where
despite giving directions and/or making
observations by the Court no one become
careful, the Court will have to treat the
same as an abuse of process of Court of
law. In such case Court can very well
ignore the illness slip to prevent the abuse
of process of Court of law and proceed
with the matter. Every one has first duty
towards the Courts of law, second duty
towards the litigants and third duty
towards Bar. Therefore third duty in the
garb of 'illness slip' can not supersede first
and second duties. In further it is to be
remembered that not only the Supreme
Court but also all the High Courts are
keen to dispose of the matters as many as
possible at the earliest. This is the order of
the day. Under such circumstances, this
Court can not take any contrary stand on
the basis of solitary case standing on a
different fact situation. It is to be
remembered that justice is not one way
traffic. It is to be done upon both the
litigating parties. If the justice is rendered
to one on the basis of illness slip, it may
cause injustice to others unless, of course,
it is evidently proved. Normally, we have
no practice to call for medical certificates
of a counsel. According to the court of
law oral submissions or the illness slip of
a counsel is good enough because Court
keeps trust upon the learned counsels.
They are part and parcel of the institution
not only as officers of the court but also
as ministers of the Courts equally with the
Judges. Therefore, we can call upon such
ministers to discharge their first duty to
the Court in the proper manner. We hope
and trust that the members of the Bar will
be able to understand the gravity of the
situation and co-operate with the Court. It
2 All] Shoorveer Singh V. Union of India and others
703
is to be remembered that constitutionally
we are bound about right vis- a- vis duty.
We should not forget our duty. When the
Court had shown leniency and thereafter
prescribed
a
formula
by
giving
adjournments on number of occasions,
Court can also expect that the matter will
be disposed of at the earliest and
necessary co-operation from the members
of the Bar will come to that extent. One
should not be forgetful that by putting
illness slip indefinitely, he is causing
difficulty to his own fellow members at
first. Interference of the Court of law
comes later on. Unless and until we
maintain ethics in discharging judicial
functions both by the members of the
Bench and Bar, glory of the High Court
can not be maintained. On the other hand,
if the fictitious illness slip are repeatedly
taken as granted, the same will be
mockery of the judicial system.

2. Under such circumstances, we
think it proper that copy of this order be
forwarded to the President and Secretary
of the Bar Association and Advocates'
Association for the purpose of effective
circulation of the order.

3. However, the matter will be
placed on 26th July, 2005 for effective
disposal irrespective of any application or
applications of the similar nature for
which longest possible time is given
hereunder.

 Petition disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ No. 54299 of 2004

Shoorveer Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.K. Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri N.P. Shukla
Sri B.N. Singh
Sri Subodh Kumar
S.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Service
Law-alternative
remedy-petitioner
a
temporary
Mazdoor-after
enquiry-
appointment obtained by fraud based on
petitions
document-held-the
facts
requires to be determined on the basis of
evidence-not
feasible
under
writ
jurisdiction-after
raising
industrial
dispute-the petitioner may approach
under writ jurisdiction.

Held: Para 16

High Court should interfere in writ
jurisdiction only when a very very strong
case has been made out for not availing
of alternative remedy and approaching
the High Court bypassing hierarchy of
the Courts. No such case as to why
alternative
remedy
available to the
petitioner is not efficacious has been
made out by the petitioner in the instant
petition, what to say of a very very
strong case for interference in writ
jurisdiction. It is not a case where pure
question of law is to be determined. This
is a case where questions of facts are to
be determined on the basis of evidence.
The controversy involved in the instant