Allahabad High Court has said, it will entertain only resolutions passed by the bar association for no adverse order in the absence of counsel and not any request raised by any office-bearer of the bar.
Observing that it is unfortunate that constitutional law court’s functioning is put on hold without considering the importance of public time and public money, besides objecting to ensuring a speedy justice delivery system.
While hearing a revision filed by one Hazi Tahseen Khan, Justice Ajit Kumar further said, “It is expected that in future whenever Bar Association wants such letters to be circulated to the benches of the High Court seeking no adverse orders, it is always supported by resolution to be adopted by the Bar Association in general and in exceptional circumstances by its executive body”.
In the present case, on November 7, the petitioner insisted on hearing in this case, as the respondent was repeatedly absent. However, the bench secretary placed a letter head of office bearers of Allahabad high court bar association (HCBA) bearing the signature of the honorary secretary of the bar association – Vikrant Pandey requesting for “no adverse order on 6th, 7th, and 8th November 2024.
Thereafter, the court asked the bar association to show whether any such resolution was adopted by the bar association or its executive body for general circulation for the benches of the high court not to pass any adverse order in the absence of any counsel.
In response, neither the president nor the secretary appeared. However, senior vice-president of HCBA, Rajesh Khare appeared before the court, and upon being asked as to whether any such resolution was adopted by the bar association or its executive body, he could not show any such resolution which might have been adopted either by the general body or executive body of the association.
Taking a serious note of it, Justice Ajit Kumar said, “The bar association should understand that courts working is governed under the rules of the court and vacations/holidays are already scheduled and except for compelling and unavoidable circumstances like natural calamities, pandemic, etc. and for untoward incidents when advocates may not attend the court.
The entire court’s working should not be generally affected and that too for a certain number of advocates not able to attend the court for their personal religious rituals to be performed at home.
In such a situation, the individual request for adjournment should be made and in such a case, the court may certainly entertain such requests for adjournment.
The convenience of Bar Association in any pressing or any unavoidable circumstances are always respected so as to entertain request for no adverse orders, but for that Bar Association or its Executive Body is expected to pass resolution.
Any office beawritingites a letter at the instance of a few lawyers, cannot be said to be a general view of the Bar, and as counsel for the petitioner has insisted on hearing in this case, it requires, therefore, reasons to be recorded for not hearing the case and condoning the absence of counsel for the respondent.
The Bar is, therefore, expected to cooperate in the routine functioning of the court and to ensure that administration of justice is not adversely affected otherwise the justice delivery system would crumble”.
However, in the interest of justice, the court adjourned the matter with the condition that on the next date, no further adjournment will be granted to the respondent.
In its order dated November 7, the court directed to send a copy of this order to Allahabad High Court Bar Association (HCBA).
