By our Staff Reporter
GUWAHATI, August 26: Good sense has prevailed, at last! The Gauhati High Court Bar Association (GHCBA) has withdrawn its boycott to the bench of Acting Chief Justice K Sreedhar Rao.
The division cench comprising of Justice T Vaiphei and S Shyam admitted the PILs filed by senior advocates Bhaskar Dev Konwar and Benudhar Das challenging the resolution of the GHCBA boycotting the Court of Acting Chief Justice K Sreedhar Rao till his retirement on October 18, 2015. Earlier the Chief Justice recused himself from the hearing of the PIL.
Notices were issued to the State Government, Bar Council of the North Eastern Region, Gauhati High Court and the Gauhati High Court Bar Association to file their response by Septem 30, 2015. Although the Court changed the nomenclature of the PIL filed by senior advocate Bhaskar Dev Konwar Into W.P.(C) but the Court made it clear that both the cases would be heard together.
During the hearing senior advocate N Dutta, appearing for the Bar Association, submitted that there is no extension of the resolution calling upon its members to abstain from the Court of the Chief Justice and the boycott call is no longer in existence, and there is no bar for the lawyers to appear in the Court of the Chief Justice.
In his strongly worded submission, senior counsel Konwar deprecated the conduct of the Bar Association in giving a call to boycott the Court of the Chief Justice as it resulted in obstruction of Justice and the litigant had to suffer immensely.
Advocate Konwar drew the attention of the Court to the intimidation faced by him during the past two days as he was sought to be restrained from using the facilities provided by the High Court by some of the members of the Association.
The senior counsel appearing for the Bar Association gave an undertaking to the Court that ‘Advocate Konwar is free to enjoy the facilities provided by the Gauhati High Court to the Advocates’.
In his reaction, Advocate Konwar said: “I am happy to know that the Association has not extended the call of boycott. At least better sense has prevailed at last. However, the effect of the call of the boycott can never be wiped out and the same would always remain a matter of concern. In so far as my suspension is concerned, it hardly affects me persolly in any manner as I can effectively discharge my duties without remaining member of the Association, but in view of the larger issues which are connected with my suspension, my fight for justice would continue.”