JUDGMENT This petition has been filed in public interest by one Shri S.P. Anand, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Members of the Bar, who according to him have gone on strike. According to the petitioner the members of the Bar have gone on strike with the result that they are not appearing in the Court and, therefore, the working of the Courts is crippled and paralysed. Even Government Advocates have gone on strike. This adventure has been undertaken obviously to ensure the hindrance (obstruction, impedance, non-co-operation) in the Courts of justice and, therefore, the act of the advocates is causing hindrance in the Courts of Justice. He has therefore prayed for initiation of contempt proceedings. The petitioner has cited many authorities in support of his petition and has also included excerpts from news items in support of his petition. In our opinion this petition deserves to be dismissed in limine for the simple reason that the advocates are governed by the Advocates' Act and if there be any misconduct on their part, then the Bar council is the proper authority to initiate action against an advocate who is responsible for acting contrary to the norms set by the Bar Council of India or the Bar Council of the State or the Advocates' Act. The non-appearance of an advocate does not become a matter of contempt automatically. The Court is always free to hear the case in absence or to dismiss the case in default if a counsel does not appear in the case. But the non-appearance of an advocate in the Court would not per se become a matter of contempt. If the petitioner has any grievance, the proper forum for its redressal is the State Bar Council before which he is free to approach. In our opinion this is not a fit case for initiating contempt proceedings against any member of the Bar for his non-appearance in the Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.