The Gujarat High Court has criticised a lawyer for not assisting the court in disposing a 25-year-old appeal filed by the state-run Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC). The lawyer, who was the advocate on record for GSRTC in the case, had informed the court that he was now a "senior advocate" and would therefore be unable to appear in the matter.
When the case was called out for hearing, a colleague of the recently designated "senior advocate" sought more time, but the court turned down the request. When the case was called out for a second time, the court was told that since the GSRTC advocate had been designated a "senior advocate", it would not be possible for him to appear in the case or assist the court.
This irked the bench of acting Chief Justice AS Dave which straightaway dismissed the case for "want of prosecution". It criticised the senior advocate, noting that his argument for not assisting the court was meritless.
"Even after the advocate on record is designated as a senior advocate, he would render proper assistance to the court about the merit of the subject matter. But no such assistance is rendered. In view of the constant non-appearance, this court is left with no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution," Justice Dave stated in his order.
The appeal under the Land Acquisition Act was filed in June 1993. The court admitted the matter in August 1994. It was not taken up for hearing until 2012. In all, the case was listed for hearing 99 times since 1994, but no effective hearing took place.
The matter kept getting adjourned for some or the other reason, including non-appearance of lawyers and GSRTC counsels seeking time.
Justice Dave was so peeved by the non-appearance of the lawyers in the case that in his order dismissing the case, he has enumerated all the occasions since March 2014 when the hearing of the case could not be taken up due to absence of lawyers.
The high court administration is hellbent on reducing the growing burden of pendency of cases, especially very old ones, and has requested the bar to cooperate in these matters. It has also notified the lawyers that cases older than five years would not be adjourned ordinarily.
