- (1.) This order will dispose of three writ petitions bearing CWP nos. 23532, 28285 and 28337 of 2013. When the case was called out for hearing today, Brig. Mohinder Singh Sohal, Mr. Sangari and Mr. Sunil Kumar, representing the petitioners in CWP nos. 23532. 28285 and 28337 of 2013, stood up in the absence of their counsels to make a plea that the matter be not heard by this Court. They have also unequivocally stated before this Court that they had approached Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice in this regard, to apprise him of the earlier orders dated 21.8.2014 passed by this Court and an appeal preferred by the aggrieved persons against it. It was on account of the order dated 21.8.2014 passed in CWP no. 21375 of 2013 & other connected cases that the aforesaid gentlemen expressed lack of faith in the Court. Surprisingly their counsels made themselves conveniently unavailable when the case was called out for hearing but appeared when the Court specifically asked for their presence.
(2.) On previous date of hearing, Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate had made an impassioned prayer for an adjournment on the ground that he had met with an accident injuring his arm and hence was unable to prepare the case. The plea was accepted inspite of stiff opposition from the other side although he could not be marked present inadvertently but when the matter was called out today the learned counsel did not come at all and aforesaid act was played out by the three gentlemen named above. Evidently it is a clear case of casting unfounded aspersions on the Court simply because the Court has expressed its opinion in the matters which in any case has been challenged in appeal as per the right available to the aggrieved persons. It would thus be no ground to accept the prayer of the three gentlemen and lend credibility to such aspersions intended ostensibly to wean away the case from this Court which had expressed an opinion adverse to them even though in related petitions on the same cause. That apart it has to be noticed that if such tendencies are encouraged it would strike at the very foundation of the roster system leading to institutional collapse. It would be absolutely easy for any litigant or member of the public to simply stand up and raise doubts about the credibility of the Court forcing it to release the case from its roster and thus playing into the hands of the individuals who are interested in bench hunting, aided and advised by their counsels. The Court thus does not wish to succumb to such pressure tactics adopted by the three gentlemen named above and would thus proceed to hear the matter regardless.
(3.) The Court would have examined the issue of proceeding against these three persons for having committed contempt in the face of the Court but keeping in view their senior status in the society and the regrets that they have expressed, it grants pardon to them but with a warning that they will not indulge in any such activity again. Mr. Vinod S Bhardwaj, Advocate states that he wishes to withdraw from the proceedings. Permitted to do so. Heard on merits. Facts are taken from CWP no. 23532 of 2013.;