JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. The proceedings of Election Petition No. 31 of 2015 and orders passed in it has been challenged through present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was elected Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Gangat Kola, whose election was challenged through said election petition. He further submits that without filing required documents and completing formalities, election petition was filed, which was not maintainable. He submits that during the strike of lawyers, the prescribed authority had accepted the application of election petitioner and passed orders. He further submits that inspite of transfer application moved by petitioner, the prescribed authority is adamant to frame issues and pass order of recounting; therefore, proceedings of said election petition should be quashed. From perusal of record, it is found that issues have not been framed in said election petition and time was afforded to opposite party no. 9 to file written statement. After filing of written statement, the issues would be framed and thereafter evidences would be received. After it any order on merit may be passed by prescribed authority. But before any of such proceeding, even before framing of issues, present writ petition has been filed. First hearing of the matter will start from the date of framing of issues, for which date was fixed, but before start of hearing, present writ petition has been filed without any sufficient reason. So far submission of accepting application on the day of lawyers' strike is concerned, it is totally unacceptable. If a person presents any application before court/prescribed authority, the said authority is duty bound to accept such application and pass appropriate order. The strike of lawyers or boycott of court by lawyers had no bearing on duty of court or prescribed authority. The party whose lawyer abstains from court work has to face consequences of the acts of his lawyer appointed by him. The boycotting of court or deliberately abstaining from the court's work is not a right, and cannot be accepted as explanation of absence from court. The averment regarding filing of transfer petition is also unacceptable. Moving of transfer application does not entitle the petitioner to get the proceeding stayed. This writ petition appears to have been filed without any sufficient reason probably for delaying the proceedings of election petition under challenge. The averment regarding filing of transfer petition is also unacceptable. Moving of transfer application does not entitle the petitioner to get the proceeding stayed. This writ petition appears to have been filed without any sufficient reason probably for delaying the proceedings of election petition under challenge. This Court finds no reason to exercise extra- ordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere in impugned order or proceedings of election petition pending before the respondent no. 3 prescribed authority, especially when there is no satisfactory reason for the same. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed.