# U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and others v. Labour Cour, Gorakhpur and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 578
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-03-02
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 2965 of 2005
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-state-sugar-corporation-ltd-and-others-v-labour-cour-gorakhpur-and-others-40491
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure 1988-S-151
C.P.C.-Restoration
Application-Petition
dismissed
in
default
on
9.1.03application moved on 6.1.05-reason for
non
appearance
disclosed-prevented
from prosecuting the case due to strike
call-if a lawyer-holding vakalatnamaabstains from attending the Court on his
personal risk-speedy justice included in
Article
21-No
sufficient
and
cogent
reason disclosed-Application rejected.

Held: Para 9

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.
Case law discussed:
1984 (2) SCC-556
1993 (3) SCC-256
1995 (3) SCC-19
1995 SCC (3) 619
1995 (1) SCC-732
1998 (8) SCC-624
199 (1) SCC-37
2003 (2) SCC-45
1992 (5) SCC-225
1998 (7) SCC-507
W.P.33778 of 97-decided on 10.10.97
1998 (1) UPLBC-587

## Text

578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Restoration Application No.
2965 of 2005
In
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11279 of 1990

U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Deoria
and others

...Petitioner
Versus
Labour Court, Gorakhpur and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.S. Nigam
Sri R.D. Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.M. Misra
Sri Tarun Varma
Sri Shyam Narain

Code of Civil Procedure 1988-S-151
C.P.C.-Restoration
Application-Petition
dismissed
in
default
on
9.1.03application moved on 6.1.05-reason for
non
appearance
disclosed-prevented
from prosecuting the case due to strike
call-if a lawyer-holding vakalatnamaabstains from attending the Court on his
personal risk-speedy justice included in
Article
21-No
sufficient
and
cogent
reason disclosed-Application rejected.

Held: Para 9

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.
Case law discussed:
1984 (2) SCC-556
1993 (3) SCC-256
1995 (3) SCC-19
1995 SCC (3) 619
1995 (1) SCC-732
1998 (8) SCC-624
199 (1) SCC-37
2003 (2) SCC-45
1992 (5) SCC-225
1998 (7) SCC-507
W.P.33778 of 97-decided on 10.10.97
1998 (1) UPLBC-587

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner
and perused the record.

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."

2. 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
2 All] U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and others V. Labour Cour, Gorakhpur and others 579
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.

3. 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. Therefore 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.

4. 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.

5.

In
Panduran
Duttatravs
Khandekar
Vs.
Bar
Council
of
Maharashtra (1984) 2 SCC-556, Tahil
Ram
Issar
Das
Sadarangam
Vs.
Ramchand
Issardas
Sadarangam
(1993) (3) SCC 256; Common Clause A.
Registered Society Vs. Union of India
(1995) SCC 19; Sanjeev Dutta Vs.
Ministry
of
Information
&
Broadcasting (1995) 3 SCC 619; Indian
Council of Legal Aid & Advice Vs. Bar
Council of India 1995 (I) SCC 732; K.
Jhon Koshi Vs. Dr. Tarakeshwar
Prasad Shaw (1998) 8 SCC 624;
Mahabir Prasad Singh Vs. Jacks
Aviation (P) Ltd. 1999 (1) SCC 37 and
Ex. Captain Harish Uppal Vs. 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.

6. 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
Vs. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225 and
Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar,
(1998) 7 SCC 507, it was held that the
litigant has a right to speedy justice.

7. Similarly in Manoj Kumar Vs.
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 reasonable
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."

8. The same view is followed in M/s
Suresh Chandra Varshney & Co. Vs.
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
State of U.P. (Writ Petition No. 15342
of 2000 decided on 30.3.2000) and
Siddartha Kumar Vs. Upper Civil
Judge, Ghazipur, (1998) 1 UPLBEC
587.

9. 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.

10. 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 & others vs.
Deputy Director of Education, Region I,
Meerut & others).

For the reasons stated above, the
restoration application is rejected.
Application Rejected.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54536 of 2004

Vivek Srivastava

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yashwant Varma
Ms. Rohma Hameed

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri S.K. Rai
Sri S.M.A. Kazmi
Sri A. Mishra
Sri I.C. Sinha
Sri Anand Mohan (In Person)
Sri Mohammad Isa Khan
S.C.

A-Cantonment
Land
Administration
Rules 1937-Rule-A-1, 14 (5)-Old Polo
ground-classified as class A-1 in the
General Register maintained by the
Military Estate Officer-except with the
previous
sanction
of
Central
Government-No buildings of 48 dwelling
units can be erected-it is a land an open
space-which provides clear, healthy air
to ensure the area free from pollution.

Held: Para 29,36,39,45

General Land Register maintained by the
Military
Estates
Officer
under
the
Cantonment
Act.
No
addition
or
alteration in the register can be made
except with the previous sanction of the
Central Government. Further no building
can be erected on Class A(1) land except
with the previous sanction of the Central
Government. No evidence has been filed
by the respondents to show that the Polo
Ground
is
being
actually
used
or
occupied
for
any
of
the
purposes
mentioned in Rule 5. In fact, it has come
on record, that Polo Ground was being
used by civilians for various functions
over a period of time. Since, the land is
being used for various purposes apart
from military purposes, it is doubtful that
the Government had correctly classified
this Polo Ground as Class-A land.

Rules 3, 14 (3) and 14 (5) of the Rules
mentions the words "previous sanction
of the Central Government". Rule 13
states that no alterations in the plans