JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Abu Bakht, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the State-respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. 2. The instant petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 (Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad) to decide Case No. 1450 of 2023 (Mohd. Rashid Qureshi v. State of U.P. and others) pending before him within a time bound period. 3. On 20.2.2024, after perusing the order sheet of the aforesaid case, this Court expressed surprise that on 11.10.2023, the Additional Commissioner had fixed 6.5.2024 as the next date, i.e. after an interval of more than six months. Accordingly, the Court directed respondent No. 3 to file his personal affidavit and disclose as to how many cases under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 are pending before him and the time frame within which he proposes to decide such cases. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Sri Brijesh Kumar, Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad has filed his personal affidavit stating therein that there are three posts of Additional Commissioner in Moradabad Division, however, only two posts of Additional Commissioner (First) and Additional Commissioner (Second) were working upto January, 2024 for judicial work. It is further stated that only one Court room is available for doing judicial work by both the Additional Commissioners and, therefore, they sit in Court for three days in a week by rotation, and that respondent No. 3, Additional Commissioner (First) sits for judicial work on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, according to the allotment of work done by the Commissioner vide his order dated 22.7.2023. Further stand is that after retirement of Additional Commissioner (Second) on 31.1.2024, it is the respondent No. 3 who is doing all the judicial work as per the office order dated 19.2.2024 issued by the Commissioner. The affidavit further goes to state that apart from judicial work, he has been entrusted with several administrative works as per office orders issued by the Commissioner; there is total pendency of 1712 arbitration cases and 1149 revenue cases (i.e. total 2861 cases) in the Court of Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad; and that the Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue has entrusted judicial and administrative works with a direction to fix around 50 cases on a particular working day. It is further stated that on 11.10.2023, i.e. the date noted by this Court in its previous order, 129 cases were fixed for hearing, out of which, 65 cases were under Section 3-G(5) of National Highways Act, 1956 and since the advocates were abstaining from judicial work on that date, the Court Assistant fixed the next date. It is also stated that the officer will try his best to decide all pending cases at the earliest subject to the above noted impediments. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in any case, since the aforesaid matter is pending since 2023, a direction to decide the same within stipulated time frame be issued by this Court, however, learned Standing Counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards a very glaring aspect of the matter by referring to Annexure PA-5 to the personal affidavit filed by the Additional Commissioner. The said Annexure contains a tabulated depiction of the situation that with effect from 1.1.2024 till 29.2.2024, i.e. in the entire months of January and February, 2024, lawyers had throughout abstained from judicial work and the Court had functioned only for two days. The table is appended by various letters issued by the office bearers of the Bar Association and Library, Moradabad informing the District Judge, Moradabad as well as Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad that lawyers would abstain from judicial work. The reasons assigned behind such abstainment are appalling, that is to say that on various dates in the months of January and February, 2024, abstainment from judicial work was done on account of “excessive cold” whereas other reasons were like strike of transporters, condolences on account of demise of certain members of the Bar Association, preparation for election of the Bar Association, such as participation in nomination, canvassing and after holding of elections, in the process of recounting. 6. When aforesaid is the situation prevailing in the district, the prayer made by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus for the Additional Commissioner to decide the aforesaid case within time bound period is thoroughly unjustified. 7. 6. When aforesaid is the situation prevailing in the district, the prayer made by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus for the Additional Commissioner to decide the aforesaid case within time bound period is thoroughly unjustified. 7. It is well-settled that a writ of mandamus can be issued only in a case where there is a statutory obligation cast upon the officer concerned and he has failed to discharge the said obligation but, at the same time, the party seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the authorities to do something, must establish before the Court that he himself has discharged the duty cast upon him before asking the authority to perform statutory obligation cast upon the latter. Reference can be made to the following authorities in this regard: (i) Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain and another, (2008) 2 SCC 280 (ii) Bihar Eastern Gangetic fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 145 (iii) Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalwani v. N.M. Shah, AIR 1966 SC 334 (iv) Dr. Uma Kant Saran v. State of Bihar, 1973 (1) SCC 485 8. As regards strike of the lawyers, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and another, AIR, 2003 SC 736; Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409 ; Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2018 (17) SCC 27 and Hussain v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702 , has already settled that it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer, who has accepted a brief, to refuse to attend the Court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council. 9. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of U.P. and others, 2024(3) ADJ 295 (SC), has observed that no direction to dispose of cases in a time bound manner be issued by the Constitutional Courts, except in exceptional circumstances. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: “37....... (a)........ (b)........ (c) Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: “37....... (a)........ (b)........ (c) Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the law referred to herein above, once it is well established on record that the lawyers are not inclined to perform their duty of appearing before the Courts of law and are regularly abstaining themselves from judicial work, the petitioners, who are represented by their Advocate, cannot pray for a writ of mandamus for time bound disposal of their case. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to persuade their lawyers to appear before the authority concerned and argue the matter.