Madras High CourtWP(MD)/12799/2014dismissed

Tamilaga Vivasayigal Sangam v. Union Of India

2015-09-28Honourable Ms.Justice V.M.Velumani,Honourable Mr Justice R. Sudhakar4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.09.2015 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Writ Petition (MD) No.12799 of 2014 Tamilagha Vivasayigal Sangam, Rep by its Trichirappalli District President, M.P.Chinnadurai Allithurai, Trichy.

... Petitioner Vs.

1.Union of India, Rep by the Secretary to the Central Government, New Delhi.

2.The National Highways Authority of India, Project Director, Trichy.

3.The National Highways Authority of India, Project Director, Karaikudi.

4.The National Highways Authority of India, Project Director, Karur.

5.The District Collector, Cantonment, Trichy 1, Tamil Nadu.

6.The District Revenue Officer, Authorized Officer of NHAI, Trichy 7.The District Revenue Officer, Authorised Officer of NHAI, Pudukottai.

8.Trichy - Karur Toll Road Private Limited (TKL Road Pvt., Ltd.,), H.Block, 1st floor, Thirupai Ambani Konwledge City, Navi, Mumbai 400710.

... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 3 4 6 7 and 8 to stop the arbitrary illegal and an unenforceable collection is being made at Valavandankottai Toll Plaza Thirupparaithurai Toll Plaza and Karur Toll Plaza till the

removal of Toll Plaza at Thirupparaithurai on the basis of the notification dated 2.4.2014 So 305(E) under section 3(ii) and 8 (A) of National High Ways Act which was pulished on 13.2.2014. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents 5-7 : Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Special Government Pleader.

For Respondents 1-4&8 : No appearance

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUDHAKAR,J.) None appears for the petitioner on account of boycott. This shows that the learned counsel for the petitioner is not interested in conducting the case. It is a clear breach of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ex.Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and another [2003 (2) SCC 45], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- "20.Thus the law is already well settled. It is the duty of every Advocate who has accepted a brief to attend trial, even though it may go on day to day and for a prolonged period. It is also settled law that a lawyer who has accepted a brief cannot refuse to attend Court because a boycott call is given by the Bar Association.

It is settled law that it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer who has accepted a brief to refuse to attend Court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council. It is settled law that Courts are under an obligation to hear and decide cases brought before it and cannot adjourn matters merely because lawyers are on strike. The law is that it is the duty and obligation of Courts to go on with matters or otherwise it would tantamount to becoming a privy to the strike. It is also settled law that if a resolution is passed by Bar Associations expressing want of confidence in judicial officers it would amount to scandalising the Courts to undermine its authority and thereby the Advocates will have committed contempt of Court.

Lawyers have known, at least since Mahabir Singh's case (supra) that if they participate in a boycott or a strike, their action is ex-facie bad in view of the declaration of law by this Court. A lawyer's duty is to boldly ignore a call for strike or boycott of Court/s. Lawyers have also known, at least since Roman Services' case, that the Advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by their clients if the nonappearance was solely on grounds of a strike call. 21.

society. Advocates have obligations and duties to ensure smooth functioning of the Court. They owe a duty to their client. Strikes interfere with administration of justice. They cannot thus disrupt Court proceedings and put interest of their clients in jeopardy. In the words of Mr. H. M. Seervai, a distinguished jurist:- "Lawyers ought to know that at least as long as lawful redress is available to aggrieved lawyers, there is no justification for lawyers to join in an illegal conspiracy to commit a gross, criminal contempt of court, thereby striking at the heart of the liberty conferred on every person by our Constitution. Strike is an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.

The principle is that those who have duties to discharge in a court of justice are protected by the law and are shielded by the law to discharge those duties, the advocates in return have duty to protect the courts. For, once conceded that lawyers are above the law and the law courts, there can be no limit to lawyers taking the law into their hands to paralyse the working of the courts. "In my submission", he said that "it is high time that the Supreme Court and the High Court make it clear beyond doubt that they will not tolerate any interference from anybody or authority in the daily administration of justice. For in no other way can the Supreme Court and the High Court maintain the high position and exercise the great powers conferred by the Constitution and the law to do justice without fear or favour, affection or ill-will."

.....

......

33.The only exception to the general rule set out above appears to be item (III). We accept that in such cases a strong protest must be lodged. We remain of the view that strikes are illegal and that Courts must now take a very serious view of strikes and calls for boycott. However, as stated above, lawyers are part and parcel of the system of administration of justice. A protest on an issue involving dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and judiciary, provided it does not exceed one day, may be overlooked by Courts, who may turn a blind eye for that one day.

......

35.In conclusion it is held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of Court premises banners and/or placards,

wearing black or white or any colour arm bands, peaceful protect marches outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts etc. It is held that lawyers holding Vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot not attend Courts in pursuance to a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. .....".

(emphasis supplied) 2.In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are inclined to dismiss the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CSII) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar.

- To 1.The Secretary to the Central Government, Union of India, New Delhi.