Dismissed

Amreesh Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Law , Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2024WPIL/636/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL regarding repeated strikes by lawyers in Tehsil Sawayajpur, Hardoi, the bench restrained the Great Lawyers Association and its members from going on strike, directed cessation of such resolutions, and warned of contempt proceedings for non-compliance with Supreme Court and High Court orders.

What did the court decide?

The Association shall not pass any resolution for going on strike; members shall not abstain from work; Office Bearers may be proceeded against for contempt if they violate this order.

Amreesh Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 636 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Amreesh Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Law , Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awdhesh Kumar Mishra,Ashutosh Kumar Singh

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶6

Affidavit of service filed today Court is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Anil Kumar Vishen, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Mr. Ashish Agnihotri, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 - The Great Lawyers Association.

¶8

The cause raised in this Public Interest Litigation is repeated strikes by Lawyers practicing in Tehsil. Sawayajpur, Hardoi who are Members of the Great Lawyers Association, Tehsil Sawayajpur, District Hardoi which has been impleaded as opposite party no. 4 through its Secretary Shri Dharmendra Singh Yadav.

¶9

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel says that the instructions received by him are not complete, therefore, he would seek some time for filing proper counter affidavit in the matter. Counsel for opposite party no. 4 says that he does not have the instructions as of now. This is not acceptable.

¶10

We have perused the pleadings which disclose that in the month of June, 2023, Lawyers were strike on 10 working days from 16.06.2023 to 24.06.2023 and 28.06.2023. Similarly in July, 2023, they were on strike for 11 days, in August, 2023 they were on strike for 8 days, in September, 2023 they were on strike for 23 days, in October, 2023 they were strike for 20 days, in the month of November, 2023 they were strike for 11 days, in December, 2023 they were on strike for 20 days, in January, 2024 they were on strike for 18 days, in February, 2024 they were on strike for 3 days, in March, 2024 they were on strike for 18 days, in April 2024 they were on strike for 5 days, in May, 2024 they were on strike for 5 days, in June, 2024 they were on strike for 19 days and in July, 2024 they were on strike for 10 days.

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the reason for going on strike as contained in the document annexed at Page 14 onward which are the resolutions of the opposite party no. 4- Bar Association.

¶12

On some of the days the Great Lawyers Association passed the resolution for going on strike on account of the visit of the President of the Bar Council. How unfortunate this is and what an irony, the name of the Association is Great Lawyers Association and it is resorting to strikes compromising its greatness. The President of the Bar Council, in fact, should have persuaded them not to go on strike because of his visit. We do not wish to say much at this stage except that this is absolutely unacceptable.

¶13

Revenue matters are heard and decided at the Tehsil level. These pertain to farmers most of them small farmers. Mutation matters remain pending for years or decades together because of such strikes, etc. The Revenue Courts, even if they want to work, are unable to do so on account of strikes. Of course, an additional aspect is that sometimes when the Lawyers are not on strike, then, the Presiding Officers of the Revenue Courts are busy in administrative work or protocol. This is also one aspect to be seen.

¶14

However, for the moment, we are of the opinion that the opposite party no. 4 should desist from passing any resolution asking its Members to go on strike and none of the Lawyers practicing at Tehsil Sawayajpur should abstain from work in pursuance to some call for strike.

¶15

We also take notice of a Division Bench judgment of this Court at Allahabad in Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 12 of 2024; in Re vs. District Bar Association of Prayagraj wherein in a similar matter pertaining to District Courts the Division Bench has restrained such strikes and passed the following order:

¶16

"1. Pursuant to the orders passed on previous occasion learned counsels representing the Bar Council of India and Uttar Pradesh Bar Council have filed their respective affidavits.

¶17

2. The Court is informed that the Chairman of Bar Council of India has held a meeting with the respective stakeholders and a fresh meeting on the aspect relating to holding of strike in the different district courts of Uttar Pradesh is proposed to be held within next two weeks.

¶18

3. Shri Sai Girdhar, learned counsel representing the Bar Council of India informs that the Bar Council of India is committed to maintenance of peaceful working without any uncalled for strike by the lawyers and that appropriate modalities in that regard would be finalized soon. A statement is made that the Chairman, Bar Council of India will remain personally present on the next occasion to assist the Court for ensuring that strikes are not allowed in district courts.

¶19

4. The statement made on behalf of Bar Council of India has been adopted by the counsel appearing for the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council as also by Shri R. K. OJha, Senior Advocate, who represents the District Bar Association, Prayagraj.

¶20

5. We hope and trust that by the next date of listing the Bar Council of India shall ensure that appropriate decisions are taken so as to contain the menace of strike in the district courts of Uttar Pradesh.

¶21

6. As prayed by the counsel representing the Bar Council of India, list this matter on 07.08.2024, on the top of the list. In addition to the presence of the Chairman of Bar Council of India, the Presidents of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association and Advocates Association are also requested to remain present on the next date fixed.

¶22

7. Till the next date of listing, none of the Bar Associations of any district courts would resort to any strike. Holding of strike in teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court would be viewed as an act of ex facie contempt. "

¶23

We also accordingly direct that the opposite party no. 4 shall not pass any resolution for going on strike for any reason whatsoever and shall cooperate in the quasi judicial functioning in the Revenue Courts. If any such resolution is passed, and/or its Members go on strike, then, the Office Bearers shall be held responsible for the same and may be proceeded in accordance with law, as, it will amount to contempt of decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and another; 2003 (2) SCC 45 and this order.

¶24

Let the Senior Registrar of this Court communicate this order formally to opposite party no. 4 through the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned. Mr. Agnihotri who is present on behalf of opposite party no. 4 shall also do the

¶25

same.

¶26

Let pleadings be exchanged within six weeks.

¶27

List thereafter.

¶28

[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶29

Order Date :- 6.8.2024 Santosh/-

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amreesh Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Law , Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amreesh Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Law , Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Rachil Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Representative Akash Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Animal Husbandry Govt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Manorama Jaiswal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

M/S Pellucid Vet Sciences Having Registered Office Thru. Authorized Rep. Atul Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Animal Husbandry Lko and Another

No 14657494F Sepoy Vinod Kumar Mishra (Retd) vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Defence Army, New Delhi and Others

Madhu Bala vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

M/S Rachil Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Representative Akash Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Animal Husbandry Govt. Lko. and Another