( 1 ) THE Board shows the name of Mr. M. B. Gandhi and Mrs. Trusha gandhi, learned Advocates for the applicants, and M/s. Singhi and company for Opponent No. 1, but, none is present. The Official liquidator is in attendance. ( 2 ) IT appears that in relation to an incident dated 17th february, 2006, when this Court issued a Notice of contempt to mr. S. B. Vakil, an Advocate practising in this Court, the Lawyers convened a meeting and thereafter, passed a Resolution to boycott this Court for two days, viz. 22nd and 23rd February, 2006. Though the fact was not officially communicated to me, but, I could learn about it from the yesterdays newspapers. Not only this, I had been receiving phone calls from Madhya Pradesh, chhatisgarh, Patna, including the townships like Indore, Raipur, bilaspur, Jabalpur, etc. The Bar Association, after passing a resolution, which is patently based on false informations, issued a Press Note to the Press Trust of India and other news channels. At Indore, in "dainik Bhaskar" (Hindi), the news have been flashed with my photograph and it has been reported that justice Garg does not sit in the Court for more than two hours; he does not work; he misbehaves with the Lawyers; and, he has issued notice unnecessarily. ( 3 ) SO far as the question of issuing notice to Mr. S. B. Vakil is concerned, it is not in dispute or at least for me, it is not in dispute that his mobile phone started ringing in the Court and he started walking out; I called him and when I asked him as to why his mobile phone was ringing in the Court and was not kept on silent mode, without showing any remorse or expressing any regrets, he had stated that he was to take medicine at 12:30 pm, therefore, he had set an alarm for 12:30 pm. When this Court asked him that why there was no remorse or regrets, and, in such an event, why the Court should not issue a Notice. By his conduct, he exhibited as if he was ready and willing to accept the Notice. The Court accordingly issued the Notice. ( 4 ) FROM the newspapers, I have also learnt that the Bar association says that I knew the fact that Mr. S. B. Vakil is a heart patient. By his conduct, he exhibited as if he was ready and willing to accept the Notice. The Court accordingly issued the Notice. ( 4 ) FROM the newspapers, I have also learnt that the Bar association says that I knew the fact that Mr. S. B. Vakil is a heart patient. Unfortunately, this is a blatant lie. I have no personal connections with Mr. S. B. Vakil, nor I know him personally. He is a respected Counsel in the Court and as a counsel only, I know him. ( 5 ) THE Bar Association also passed the Resolution showing that I dont work in the Court for more than two hours. Though I am not required to justify my judicial conduct, but, I must say that the Bar Association, with fullest knowledge of the facts to undermine my authority and cause disreputation to me, has made this false and fraudulent statement. No Lawyer in this Court can say that I have not finished the days work. If the case are listed in less numbers and I conclude the cases within two hours, I am not supposed to sit upto 4:45 pm. in the Court. For three " four days, I did not hear the final hearing matters as the Lawyers continuously were asking for adjournments in the final hearing matters. I always persuaded the Lawyers that instead of making a prayer for adjournment, they must come prepared and argue the matters. It appears that some of the lawyers are annoyed with me because I have stopped the practice of mentioning at the beginning of the day. It is routine in this court that when a Judge takes the seat, almost every Lawyer jumps upon and says that they want an adjournment for one reason or the other. I had been asking the Lawyers that instead of asking for adjournment on one ground or the other, they must wait for their turn. I stopped this practice. It appears that it has caused heart burning. I had been asking the Lawyers that instead of asking for adjournment on one ground or the other, they must wait for their turn. I stopped this practice. It appears that it has caused heart burning. I had been asking the Senior Lawyers that if they are not available to argue the matter or if they are busy in some other court, then, they must ask their junior to appear in the Court, allow him to argue the matter and if the Court is convinced with his arguments, relief would be granted, but, if the Court is not convinced with the arguments of the Junior Colleague of the senior Counsel, then, the matter would be adjourned and the senior Counsel would be called. This, I had been doing to encourage the Junior Lawyers so that good Junior Lawyers come up to replace us and the Senior Lawyers. I always did it because when I was a young Lawyer, I was protected and projected by some good Judges and this time, I thought that this must be my duty, which I must discharge towards the profession and the fraternity of Lawyers, from which I come. ( 6 ) FROM the newspapers, it has come to my notice that an allegation has been made against me that I have asked the State government to spend a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs on my residential bungalow. I dont know, how this would be a cause to be taken against me by the Bar Association. The Bar has also said that my repair allowance could only be Rs. 5. 50 Lakhs and not beyond that. Let me tell them that without making any thorough and perfect inquiry and without collecting complete facts, at least the Society of Lawyers should not make false and bald allegations. I was told by the Government that they have allocated a sum of Rs. 15 Lakhs for upkeep and betterment of my residential bungalow. On an earlier occasion, some disgruntled persons circulated certain notes against me and after finding that the allegations were in relation to expenses beyond requirement, I referred the matter to the Chief Minister for registering the case against the Executive Engineer and the others, who were involved in the matter of construction. On an earlier occasion, some disgruntled persons circulated certain notes against me and after finding that the allegations were in relation to expenses beyond requirement, I referred the matter to the Chief Minister for registering the case against the Executive Engineer and the others, who were involved in the matter of construction. The chief Minister, with the intervention of His Excellency the governor, constituted a Committee of a Retired Judge of this court and a Retired Chief Engineer, to make an inquiry into the matter. The inquiry is still being made. I had made allegations against the construction agency that they have spent more than what was required and they have prepared false bills. I have also made an allegation that amount of Rs. 50,000/- had been paid to the water proofing agency without even checking that water proofing was in accordance with the requirement or not. Even after three coats, water still seaps in my house and the government Agency says that they have got the work done in accordance with the requirement. ( 7 ) IN the land of Mahatma Gandhi, if civil disobedience is allowed and the Lawyers propose to avoid the Court to make a protest, then, they cannot forget the other teachings of Mahatma gandhi wherein he has said that "truth is above all"; "truth shall also Triumph", "satya Meva Jayate". The Bar Association is an August institution. If the Bar Association, for one reason or the other, or on the strength of persuasion of some or the others, starts making allegations against the Judges of the court and refuse to appear in the matters listed before the court, then, it may reflect against the sovereignty and independence of the judiciary, of which the Lawyers fraternity is also a part. The Lawyers, before making such a resolution, could have taken me into confidence. It is expected of the judges that they shall not condemn anybody without hearing them. It is expected of the Judges that an opportunity of hearing would be afforded to all concerned, who are facing one or the other problem in a particular Court. The Lawyers, who are known as Judges of the Judges, this time, did not apply the principles of natural justice; they did not provide me an opportunity of hearing; they did not make an inquiry into anything; they immediately made an attack on my judicial conduct. The Lawyers, who are known as Judges of the Judges, this time, did not apply the principles of natural justice; they did not provide me an opportunity of hearing; they did not make an inquiry into anything; they immediately made an attack on my judicial conduct. At least, I am happy and thankful to the Lawyers of the Bar Association that they have not made any attempt against my legal acumen and integrity, I am obliged to them. ( 8 ) I must inform the Members of the Bar Association that I am an outsider, who elected to come to Gujarat in the request made to the Honble the Chief Justice of India, under the hopes that I will have good working conditions and a perfect atmosphere in the Court. Let me also inform them that in whole of Gujarat, I have no relations and when, I came to this Court, I knew nobody in whole of the State. For me, the brothers are the Judges of the High Court and the friends are the Lawyers, who are appearing in my Court. If I dont recognise the faces in the court, then, one must not feel bad of it. In my Court, as I was always taught, the case has some value and face has no value; the faces count out of the Court, while the merits of the cases count in the Court. When the Lawyers do not work in the Court and make an allegation that I was not working for more than 2 hours or I was not working at all, then, the blame is not to be shouldered by me. At least, the final disposal records would show that how many cases were listed, how many were adjourned at the request of one lawyer or the other, because of leave note or sick note or on the ground that the Counsel was on legs before other Honble Judge. ( 9 ) FROM 28th February, 2005 to 30th September, 2005, I was a member of the Division Bench. In the Division Bench, while I was sitting with Mr. Justice J. N. Bhatt, we could dispose of 24 matters and while sitting with Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi, we had disposed of 1,060 cases. I had also disposed of 42 civil revision cases while sitting in the civil revision roster. In the Division Bench, while I was sitting with Mr. Justice J. N. Bhatt, we could dispose of 24 matters and while sitting with Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi, we had disposed of 1,060 cases. I had also disposed of 42 civil revision cases while sitting in the civil revision roster. I have also disposed of 390 cases while sitting in the Division bench with Mr. Justice K. M. Mehta. Since after 1st October, 2005, I am sitting in the Company Roster and I have disposed of more than 682 cases. The total disposal from 28th February, 2005 to 20th February, 2006 would be 2,198 cases. If this is the total disposal in one year, can anybody be allowed to say that I sit only for two hours. The cases are not disposed of in air. The cases are heard and decided. At least, the Lawyers dont have any grievance against me that I dont hear them. If more than 10 cases per day are disposed of in 210 working days, then, it cannot be said that I was not working in the Court. The figures have been supplied to me by the High Court Statistical department and I believe those be correct. ( 10 ) THE Statistical Department of this Court would satisfy the lawyers about my disposal. If the Lawyers do not allow the judges to work and then make an allegation that the Judges do not work, then, the Lawyer as a class have to thank themselves. If a Judge is ready to work, but, the conditions are not cozy; the conditions are not comfortable and the Lawyers do not cooperate, no fault can be found with the Judge. If the cases are adjourned, the Judge has no disposal, still the allegation is that he does not work. If the Judge does not adjourn the case, the allegations are that he is too tough and does not accommodate anybody. True it is, that it is always difficult to discharge the duties as a Judge, but, it would never be difficult for a Judge to conduct himself properly. In the case of Mr. S. B. Vakil, a word of regret would have been sufficient, but, instead of expressing his regrets, he retaliated in the matter and must have expressed his resentment before the Bar, and thereafter, such a resolution was passed. In the case of Mr. S. B. Vakil, a word of regret would have been sufficient, but, instead of expressing his regrets, he retaliated in the matter and must have expressed his resentment before the Bar, and thereafter, such a resolution was passed. It is for the members of the Bar to look into their conduct before finding fault with the Judge. ( 11 ) NO Lawyer practising in this Court can say that he has ever obliged me. No Lawyer can ever say that I have ever asked him for any favour. No Lawyer can ever say that I have met or contacted him in relation to my personal issues or problems. On the other hand, the Lawyers of this Court would vouch that I do not go to attend their personal functions even though I am invited. The Supreme Court has observed that the Judges must maintain a distance from the public and from the Lawyers. If observing the commandment of the Supreme Court, I had so done, should I be taken to be a bad man. The allegations made against me, in fact, are prompted because I am maintaining distance and not obliging the Lawyers in the Court. If I am required to exercise my discretion in a given case, nobody needs to tell me, but, if law does not permit me to pass any order, then, tones of persuasion would not confer jurisdiction upon me to oblige anybody. I am required to tell all this because my conduct is required to be tested on the touchstone (") brought by the Bar association. ( 12 ) IN the matter of Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and anr. , (2003) 2 SCC 45 , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has observed that the Lawyers have no right to go on strike or even token strike or to give a call for boycott, nor can they, while holding vakalat on behalf of clients, abstain from Courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. Lawyers refusing to respond to such a call cannot be visited with any adverse consequences by the Bar Association or the Bar Council. No Bar council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting to consider such a call. Permissible modes of protest against actions of anybody are well described in the said judgement. Lawyers refusing to respond to such a call cannot be visited with any adverse consequences by the Bar Association or the Bar Council. No Bar council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting to consider such a call. Permissible modes of protest against actions of anybody are well described in the said judgement. The supreme Court has further said that it is in rarest of rare cases, involving dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar or the Bench, courts may ignore a protest abstention from work not exceeding one day. Here, it is to be noted that the protest is for two days. The Supreme Court then said that it is for the court to decide whether the issue involves such aspects. According to the Supreme Court, in such cases, the President of the Bar must first consult the Chief Justice or the District judge, whose decision would be final. The courts are under no obligation to adjourn the matters in case of Lawyers strike. Judges are rather duty bound to proceed with the listed matters in the absence of the Lawyers. I am in the horns of a dilemma. I dont know, what I should do. By not doing anything,i have enraged the Bar Association and this time, if I follow the judgement of the Supreme Court; they are likely to pounce upon me; because of their strike, I am unable to work in the Court. I would simply say, rather, should pray to God that Oh My Father in Heavens, excuse them/exempt them as they know not as to what they are doing. The matter is adjourned. ( 13 ) LET a copy of this order be sent to My Lord the Chief justice so that the matter is brought to the notice of the general public and magnanimity of this Court is not adversely affected because of the publication of the Resolution, which is based on false and concocted facts. .