- (1.) Heard Sri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. This petition deserves to be disposed of on a very short ground and on a point which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the appellate authority has manifestly erred by not respecting the resolution of the Bar on account of the condolence due to the death of a senior lawyer practicing in the Bar Association in the court of the Commissioner, Gorakhpur.
(2.) Sri Shyamal Narain submits that the appeal was filed by the petitioner's father and when he died the petitioner was substituted by the appellate authority on 21st October, 1995. Thereafter the next date fixed was 28th October, 1995 on which date an adjournment was sought which was granted and the date fixed was 31st October, 1995. Sri Shyamal Narain submits that the petitioner after his substitution had not sought any unnecessary adjournment and as a matter of fact on 31st October, 1995 the petitioner's counsel could not assist the appellate authority on account of the resolution of the Bar Association copy whereof has been filed as annexure-8 to the writ petition.? He has invited the attention of the Court to the said document where it is recorded that the lawyers in order to attend the funeral of late Sri Vishwanath Tripathi were abstaining from work and as such the appeal be accordingly adjourned.
(3.) The appellate authority in stead of adjourning the matter recorded that the matter has been heard with the assistance of D.G.C. Revenue and that the counsel for the petitioner was avoiding hearing only with a view to linger on the matter. He described the adjournment sought as a devise to prolong and protract the hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, he proceeded ex-parte and in a cryptic manner dismissed the appeal.;