Nadira Patherya, J. - (1.) On 28th February, 2018 the matter had been adjourned till this day and at 12.10 p.m. the matter was called on. As lawyers abstained from participating in the Court proceedings for the issue that may be found in their respective resolutions, at the time of call the writ petitioner appeared. None appears on behalf of the respondents. The writ petitioner complained of physical discomfort and he handed to Court a mentioning slip which according to him was most urgent. The contents of the mentioning slip dated 6th March, 2018 has been set out herein below: " Grounds for urgency. That this is for your kind information that the above mention cases were made to prevent jeopardizing the life and properties of the petitioner and the family. That the applications are made to secure the human right, fundamental right constitutional rights and legal right as per the provisions established under the law and order and also to prevent further losses. That unfortunately I was ignored. That a grave violation of humanity was continuing by severally violating the Articles 13,14,21 and 39A of the Constitution of India, and Article 6,7,8 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 and the principle of Natural Justice. That the petitioner also suffered for legal wrongs or a legal injury by reason of violation of several constitutional and legal provision without the authority of law to the petitioners due to the reason of helplessness and economically disadvantages position. The mandatory reliefs are denied with a violation of human rights. That for such the applications comes under the provision of Public Interest Litigation. That as per the provision under "Rules Under Articles 226 Constitution". App IV, under rules 56, 57, 58 and 59 it should be appropriate to placed the matter before the division bench as per the determination of the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice to secure the fair end of justice. That in respect of ongoing erroneous proceedings and violation of the principle of Natural Justice and email was forwarded on today for information, record and necessary action and the same should be consider before any procedure. That this is also a fact that on previous day the case no. 2 and 3 are not called for hearing and the affidavit-in-service duly authorised on 16.02.2018 in respect of case no. 3 was not admitted without any reasoned cause. That order dated 28.02.2018 severally suffered the deficient of the true facts. That in such case again it was requested to consider the affidavit in services on dated 16.02.2018 for case no. 3 and 28.02.2018 for case no. 1 for the fair interest of justice. That on previous day the petitioner prayed that my health was not good and the case 1 and case 2 and 3 should be heard on different days at the files are heavy to carry and points are also different. That unfortunately I was ignored with gross violation of human rights. That again I am appealing that I am sick and failed to attend the Hon'ble Court if the all cases are combined. That for the interest of fair justice and with due respect to the human rights and the principle of natural justice it should be fair to modify the listing of the cases to secure the justice. That my honest endeavour to get the justice and to establish the truth that was barred and the petitioner suffered a injured. Hence it is prayed before your Honour that it should be appropriate to direct the Registrar General to register such report as P. I. L. and to place before the said division bench. The mentioning is duly done in time of the Hon'ble Court in emergency for necessary order for the end of justice. And for such act the appellant shall be grateful. Date : Tuesday, 6/3/2018 Sd/- Dr. Atanu Chattopadhyay (petitioner in person) Attached to the mentioning slip is the e-mail dated 6th March, 2018 too. The contents of this e-mail dated 6th March, 2018 is also set out herein below : "Dated : 06.03.2018 Subject:- Urgent Demand for Righteous Justice Respected Sir, This is for kind information and record that the above mention cases were made to prevent jeopardizing the life and properties of the petitioner and the family. That the applications are made to secure the human right, fundamental right constitutional rights and legal right as per the provisions established under the law and order and also to prevent further losses. That unfortunately I was ignored. That a grave violation of humanity was continuing by severety violating the articles 13, 14, 21 and 39A of the Constitution of India, and article 6, 7 and 8 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 and the principle of Natural Justice. That the petitioner also suffered for legal wrongs or a legal injury by reason of violation of several constitutional and legal provision without the authority of law to the petitioner due to the reason of helplessness and economically disadvantages position. The mandatory reliefs are denied with a violation of human rights. That for such the applications comes under the provision of Public Interest Litigation. That as per the provision under "Rules Under Article 226 Constitution" App IV under rules 56, 57, 58 and 59 it should be appropriate to placed the matter before the division bench as per the determination of the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice to secure the fair end of justice. That in respect of the ongoing illegal strike the petitioner already submitted an emergency appeal under articles 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. (through the Registrar) Supreme Court of India on dated 26.2.2018 and such was mentioned before the Hon'ble Court dated 28.2.2018 just for the information that the strike is illegal and contempt the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. That the above referred applications are assigned before the Hon'ble Justice Nadira Patherya, Court No. 8 for proper proceeding. That as per the list published in the website of High Court at Calcutta on dated 27.2.2018 and 28.2.2018 the above matters are listed in the serial no. 1 to 3 under the heading Assigned Matters. That for the interest of justice the petitioner appears before the Hon'ble Court at proper time. That in respect of the above three cases no respondents are present before the Hon'ble Court although they are knowledgeable about the cause list that this is also informed to the Hon'ble Court, that the respondents are willfully failed to attend the Hon'ble Court within due time by the violation of the law and order. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal -vs- Union of India Anr. on 17 December, 2002 " there will be no strikes and/or calls for boycott' . So the respondents should be declared as ex-parte. That my prayer was denied and again I was directed to appear on the next date 06.03.2018 for the adjudication of the matters. Hence my fair interest of justice was denied. That the above judgment was challenged by the Hon'ble Judge without any sufficient reason and by gross violation of the articles 13,14,21 and 144 of the Constitution of India. That for such the order dated 28.02.2018 is void. Another judgment is provided for instance. That in Onkar Singh -vs- Angred Singh and Ors., 1993 AIR(P&H) 134 on 10 September, 1992. Equivalent citations. Punjab- Haryana High Court. It was declared that non-appearance of counsel on account of strike call is not a sufficient cause for restoration of suits dismissed in default. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dekonda Venkataiah vs- Bobbili Mallaiah (died), 1971 2 AndhWR 89, observed as under with respect to the conduct of lawyers in not appearing in the cases on the resolution passed by the Bar Association for going on strike:- To say the least, it is most unfortunate that the members of the Bar Association, representing a noble profession should take part in such activities and pass such a resolution. If the learned counsel or the members of the bar wanted to take part in such agitation, the proper procedure is to have intimated to the party and withdrawn from the case or from the profession, but not to boycott Courts and have the appeals dismissed for default. This sort of conduct on the part of the advocate cannot be pardoned on any principle known to legal ethics."
(2.) After observing as above, it was further observed: "But, however, unpardonable the conduct of the Advocate may be the interest of the client should not suffer". That this Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta is a constitutional court and the suits are writ petition in nature. The ambit is vast of so I cannot be said that any difficulties cannot be sort out under the scope of the constitution court. That if the advocates cannot keep trust on the judicial system and call the strike and some Hon'ble Judges also supported the activities then how they should provide the confidence to the other parties to solve their problems? What is going is completely illegal and unconstitutional and creating a constitutional crisis. That if the advocates are allowed then the other parties should be allowed, so the concept the judicial system will lost its importance and create a dangerous constitutional crisis in the near future. That the law abide petition just tried his best to secure the status of the trusted institution and to end the constitutional crisis lawfully that in the same problem the petitioners have already filed an applications and such was arbitrarily denied by the previous court with complete biased nature and if my petition should be considered with due respect then the strike may be prevented. That the petitioner always has a fair interest to solve the problems under the procedure established by the law, but some how I was misunderstood and injured with arbitrary orders. That if a party failed to appear before the Hon'ble Court without any reasonable costs then it cannot be considered under the principle of natural justice. It only applied in natural and reasonable cause. That with all due consideration it cannot be said that illegal strike is natural cause or fair interest. That petitioner is enough competent to consider any situation that is natural reasonable and humanitarian, but I cannot accept anything that is arbitrary, unfair and unjust. That no doubt the problem is complex but not unsolved. That even there is a provision for the parties to furnish their statements through the retain submission by respecting the hon'ble court but the learned parties failed to respect the Hon'ble Court and its fair procedures. That on dated 28.2.2018 I was misunderstood and threatened to dismiss my writ petition with injury. That I was not heard after having the e-mail and I was defamed. The order was also pronounced without any procedure and I was remained unheard. The principle of right to heard was denied. That I was defamed and injured by taking the advantage of my respect toward the Hon'ble Court and the Judges post, which upset me. The matter and grievance was informed in details on 1st March, 2018. Thursday to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, (through the Registrar) Supreme Court of India under articles 32 of the Constitutional of India against legal injury. And the same was also provided for information record and necessary action to 1. The Hon'ble President of India, Rashtrapati Bhawan,l Raisina Hills, New Delhi, DL 110004, India, E-mail secy.president@rb.nic.in. 2. The Secretary (Justice), Jaisalmer House, 26, Mansingh Road, New Delhi-110011. E-Mail: secy-jus@gov.in. Phone: 01123383674. That the Principle of Natural Justice is identified with the two constituents of a fair hearing, which are the rule against bias (nemo iudex in cause su , or "no man a judge in his own cause") and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem, or "hear the other side"). That the said principles was denied to me and injustice burden upon me. That the honest endeavor of the petitioner was wasted with gross violation of the natural justice, fundamental rights and human rights. That the petitioner suffers legal injury and so if should be appropriate to release the petitions to secure the Principle of Natural Justice. The said writ petition should be considered as public interest litigation. That the petitioner will not agitate the matter before the Hon'ble Court to secure the self dignity and respect toward the Hon'ble Court. Hence you are requested to forward a copy to the authorities urgently and to do the needful to secure the justice. Thanking you, Yours faithuflly Sd/- Dr. Atanu Chattopadhyay"
(3.) It has been recorded in the order dated 28th February, 2018 that the litigant in person or the writ petitioner had agreed to file the affidavit of service on the next date of hearing. Therefore, such affidavit of service has been handed to Court and the said has been taken on record. The application filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by a letter before the Supreme Court of India though mentioned and submitted by the litigant in person on 28th February, 2018 till today the said letter or application has not been produced before this Court. In fact the said letter has not been produced even today before this Court. The writ petitioner may be an aggrieved person and he has also filed the writ petition and various CAN applications. He cannot address e-mails continuously to air his grievance captioned under "Urgent Demand for Righteous Justice", which is the caption of the e-mail dated 6th March, 2018. Similarly, the e-mail dated 27th February, 2018 has been captioned as "Urgent Information against denial of justice by the Hon'ble Court No. 8". Therefore, the writ petitioner is habituated in filing or addressing e-mails and two e-mails have been found in this regard. The litigant is sick today. The Court is in seisin of this matter it will not be prudent for the litigant in person to continue issuing these emails. Therefore, these e-mails cannot be allowed to continue and as issuing emails tantamount to interfere with the proceedings which have been filed by him, the litigant in person be imposed with costs of 1000 G.Ms. equal to Rs.17,000/- to be paid to the State Legal Services Authority by 14th March, 2018.;