S.C. SHUKLA (ADVOCATE) Vs. SWATANTRA SINGH, REGISTRAR, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER OPPOSITE PARTIES
LAWS(ALL)-2005-10-207
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 28,2005

S.C. Shukla (Advocate) Appellant
VERSUS
Swatantra Singh, Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow and another Opposite parties Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.K.YOG, J. - (1.) APPLICANT is an Advocate practicing at Lucknow before Lucknow Bench of "The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad'.
(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 1 and Opposite party No. 2 are said to be working at the relevant time as Registrar and 'Senior Most' Private Secretary at Lucknow Bench of the High Court. Petitioner has filed his own affidavit sworn on 19.10.2005, in support of the above noted contempt application. Relevant paras of the said affidavit for convenience are reproduced : "01. That the applicant is practicing Advocate in this Hon'ble Court. He feels that as an Advocate he is duty bound to see that the majesty of the Court is maintained and no obstruction or interference is made by any person or authority in the administration of justice in any manner. 05. That no Stenographer/P.A./P.S. was present in Court from 11.50 a.m. to 12.50 p.m. in Court No. 20 before the said Bench. The Hpn'ble Bench also showed its displeasure thrice. 06. That since no Stenographer/P.A./P.S. was attending the Court the work came to a stand still for one hour. 07. That the two cases of the applicant were listed in the supplementary list viz., W.P. No. 6365 (M/B) (Crl.) of 2005, Parasnath v. State and W.P. No. 6367 (M/B) (Crl.) of 2005, Akhilesh Pandey v. State, at SI. Nos.'5 and 9 respectively. 08. That due to non-availability of Stenographer/P.A./P.S. for one hour the work of the Court could not be performed, the Hon'ble Bench could only finish fresh cases and supplementary list could not be taken up. 09. That opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 failed to perform their mandatory duties in making supervision and ensuring the presence of Stenographer/P.A./P.S. in Court No. 20 on 7.10.2005. 10. That opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are guilty of interfering the due course of judicial proceeding and obstructing the administration of justice."
(3.) APPLICANT appeared in person and orally submitted that primary object of filing present contempt case is to draw attention of all the concerned to remind them of their duty to provide adequate 'staff to the Court and make sure of smooth functioning of the Court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.