Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) The limited issue before this court arises from a letter written by the petitioner, originally sent during the pendency of the petition to the Chief Justice, in effect, intimating the court that he has unilaterally terminated the instructions of his counsel to act and plead. The case had been listed on the letter of the petitioner. These are matters of record.
(2.) In this letter to the Chief Justice the petitioner attempts to set the blame on counsel. This is not correct. The petition was filed on 7 December, 1985 on which date the State Counsel was granted one month's time to file a counter-affidavit and the case was directed to be listed immediately thereafter. Unfortunately, the matter was listed almost after 7 months since the petition was presented before the court. On 14th July, 1986, the Hon'ble Bench before whom the writ petition was pending admitted the writ petition and issued notice on the writ petition. The counter-affidavit was not forthcoming and on 21 August, 1986 on a report of the registry, the matter was before the court for orders. On two dates apparently the case was adjourned at the instance of the petitioner's counsel. This was on 22 August, 1986 and 25 August, 1916. On the latter date mentioned, the petitioner was writing to the Chief Justice that despite the fact that pleadings between the parties have been exchanged yet the matter is not being put up for hearing or for consideration of grant of an ad interim order. In his letter to the Chief Justice, the petitioner took re coarse to making incorrect statements. The order-sheet of the writ petition shows that the counter-affidavit is answer to the writ petition has yet to be received and is not on record to date. Thus, the fact that the matter cannot be heard is no fault of the petitioner's counsel whose instructions were terminated unilaterally. The petitioner is free to terminate his counsel's instructions but the reason he attributes to the counsel is not correct.
(3.) While the petitioner had in effect terminated his counsel's instructions, unilaterally, he sought another counsel. Petitioner's first counsel was Mr. G.C. Dwivedi, today Senior Advocate, Petitioner's subsequent counsel is Mr. A.N. Singh, Advocate.;