Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 136 (ALL)

Prem Shankar v. State of U. P.

2019-01-18

PANKAJ MITHAL, ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed as no one has appeared for the petitioner-appellant and rather the counsel had sent illness slip and a cost of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed. 3. In challenging the above order dated 13.12.2018, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner-appellant is that the petitioner-appellant alone is not instrumental in getting the matter adjourned time and again rather several adjournments were taken by the Standing Counsel. On some of the occasions, the matter was adjourned as Standing Counsel took time to file reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner-appellant. Thus, there is no wilful or deliberate action of the petitioner-appellant to delay the proceedings. 4. A careful consideration of the material on record reveals that the petition was filed in the year 1991 and it was dismissed on 27.5.2004. The order of dismissal was set aside in Special Appeal vide order dated 12.10.2017, whereupon the writ petition was revived and was listed for hearing. 5. The order sheet thereafter reveals that though initially counsel for the petitioner-appellant took adjournment, but then filed a supplementary affidavit. The Standing Counsel then took time to file reply to the supplementary affidavit for which purpose several dates were fixed and the matter was adjourned at the request of the Standing Counsel. Finally, the petition was listed on 13.12.2018, on which date counsel for the appellant had sent illness slip but the Writ Court looking to the fact that the petition was pending since 1991 and has been got adjourned time and again dismissed it imposing a cost of Rs.50,000/- 6. In Rais Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others, (1999) 4 AWC 3365(S.C.) the matter was not adjourned on the illness slip of the counsel and was decided. It was from Allahabad had gone up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted that the sending of illness slip by the counsel for the purposes of getting the matter adjourned is one of the traditions and part of the practices of this Court and that illness slip ought to be honoured. It was from Allahabad had gone up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted that the sending of illness slip by the counsel for the purposes of getting the matter adjourned is one of the traditions and part of the practices of this Court and that illness slip ought to be honoured. The Supreme Court observed as under: "The adjournment of a case on the "illness slip" reflects the Court's respect for the counsel and its consciousness that a lawyer or counsel, though an officer of the Court, is nevertheless a human being who can fall ill. It also reflects the faith and trust the lawyer has in the Court that the Court would, on his "illness Slip", adjourn the case." 7. It may be pertinent to mention here that the profession of legal practice is distinct from any other business or trade as it is based upon principle of mutual cooperation of the Bar and Bench rather than that of competition. Therefore, traditions and practices of the Court must be followed unless there are good and strong reasons to deviate from the same. 8. In view of the above decision and the fact that the counsel for the petitioner-appellant on 13.12.2018 had sent illness slip, we are of the opinion that the Single Judge ought to have honoured the same and adjourned the matter unless of course of illness was found to be fake or not genuine or may have imposed conditions, if necessary, but throwing the matter and closing the doors of justice for no fault of the litigant is not justified. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 13.12.2018 dismissing the writ petition is hereby set aside and the writ petition is directed to be restored to its original number for decision on merits in accordance with law, but subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-, which the petitioner-appellant shall pay in favour of the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad within a period of one week from today, failing which it shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue from the counsel for the petitioner-appellant. 10. The special appeal is allowed.