Bar association Mirzapur remained on strike on 30-May-2015 in order pressurize the administration of justice for demands 1-to bring up civil judge Chunar to head office and 2-to oppose the transfer of criminal court to Chunar.
30 May 2015
Hon’ble Sir-How can it be justified to demand the civil court working at Chunar to Mirzapur head office. In order to decentralize the power if government wants to transfer criminal court to Chunar in order to benefit people of Chunar and adjoining areas ,then why bar association Mirzapur for narrow gains taking entire judicial system at district head quarter at ransom.
1-No judicial member wants to sit in Chunar courts because they prefer to remain in district head quarter because of better civic amenities at the district head office.
2-Handful of lawyers practicing at district courts are frightened that their few cases will be transferred to Chunar and for those cases they will have to travel Chunar. How much justified demand that four clients from Chunar area can come to district court in order to pairvi (recommendation ) of their cases but one advocate can’t go to chunar to argue these cases at Chunar court. Why these advocates are not demanding mobile courts which may go to their residences in order to provide justice to their clients.
With due respect your applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Therefore in such cases where strike is inevitable, the President of the Bar must first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge before Advocate decide to absent themselves from Court. The decision of the Chief Justice or the District Judge would be final and have to be abided by the Bar. It is held that Courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strike. On the contrary, it is the duty of all Courts to go on with matters on their boards even in the absence of lawyers. In other words, Courts must not be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. It is held that if a lawyer, holding a Vakalat of a client, abstains from attending Court due to a strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay costs which shall be in addition to damages which he might have to pay his client for loss suffered by him.”
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Another
[(2003) 2 SCC 45], the Court (C.B.) held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott and even they cannot go on a token strike. The Court has specifically observed that for just or unjust cause, strike cannot be justified in the present-day situation. Take strike in any field, it can be easily realised that the weapon does more harm than any justice. Sufferer is the society — public at large.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether these strike calls are not making mockery of directions Hon’ble High court of judicature at Allahabad and Hon’ble Apex court of India. Whether it is justified for personal gains , to hijack the system and keeping the services of citizenry at ransom .
This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook the rights of citizenry by delivering services in arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap benefit of loopholes in system and depriving poor citizens from right to justice. Therefore it is need of hour to take concrete steps in order to curb grown anarchy in the system. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
Yogi M. P. Singh
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India .