Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010103762025 2025:GAU-AS:6690 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MC/21/2025 LAKHESWAR MAZUMDAR S/O LT. KANTESWAR MAZUMDER, R/O VILL. ABHYAPURI TOWN W/NO. 3, CIRCLE SRIJANGRAM, P.O. AND P.S ABHYAPURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETRY GOVT. OF ASSAM, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON P.O.AND P.S. ABHAYAPURI ASSAM PIN-783384 3:THE CHAIRMAN TOWN COMMITTEE ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGAON P.O. AND P.S. ABHAYAPURI ASSAM PIN-783384 4:PRAFULLA CHOUDHURY S/O PURNANADA CHOUDHURY R/O VILL. ABHAYAPURI TOWN WARD NO. 3 PACHDUAR CIRCLE-SRIJANGRAM BONGAIGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. P CHAKRABORTY, MS. K KHAN,MS. A DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 26.05.2025 Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. 2. This is an application filed by the application seeking restoration of writ petition No. 798/2020, which was dismissed for non- prosecution on 24.03.2025. 3. Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that on 24.03.2025, when the said writ petition was listed before this court in the admission column, she could not appear before the court as she misread the resolution adopted by the bar regarding protest for shifting of the premises of the Gauhati High Court to a new vicinity to the effect that there shall be cessation from court’s work on 24.03.2025. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. 5. In this restoration application, the only ground for non- appearance of the learned counsel before this court on 24.03.2025 is due to misunderstanding of the resolution adopted by the bar as Page No.# 3/6 regards protest in connection with the issue of shifting of the premises of the high court building. 6. Apt to refer to paragraph 7 of the application, which reads as hereunder: - “That while the matter was listed on 24.03.2025 for consideration in the admission column the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner could not be present to argue the case on behalf of the petitioner due to gross misunderstanding of the resolution adopted by the bar regarding protest for shifting of the premisis of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in a new vicinity. And hence the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution.” 7. It appears that though the applicant has pleaded that due to gross misunderstanding of the resolution adopted by the bar regarding protest for shifting of the premises of the Gauhati High Court, neither the date of such resolution nor a copy of the said resolution is enclosed in the application. 8. Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, places the Notice dated 21.03.2025, whereby it was notified that as per the resolution dated 19.03.2025, adopted in the Extra-ordinary General Meeting, the Members of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association will be holding a sit-in-demonstration on 24.03.2025 from 11 am to 2 pm against the proposed shifting of the Gauhati High Court (Principal Seat) to Rangmahal, North Guwahati. A copy of the said notice dated 21.03.2025, issued by the Secretary General, Gauhati High Court Bar Association, is reproduced hereunder for ready Page No.# 4/6 reference: - “Ref.No.GHCBA/2025 Date:21.03.2025 NOTICE As per the resolution adopted in the Extra-Ordinary General Meeting held on 19.03.2025 (Wednesday), the Gauhati High Court Bar Association (GHCBA) will be holding a Sit-in- Demonstration on 24.03.2025 (Monday) from 11:00 AM to 02:00 P.M. in protest against: · The proposed shifting of the Gauhati High Court (Principal Seat) to Rangmahal, North Guwahati. · The Full Court resolution, which was passed without taking the Bar into confidence regarding the proposed shifting. All the learned members are requested to participate and stand in solidarity with the Association. Secretary General” 9. Reading the aforesaid resolution, it is clear that the Bar Association had called for holding a sit-in-demonstration on 24.03.2025, and all the members of the Bar Association were requested to participate and stand in solidarity with the association. It is apparent from the notice that the Bar Association has not requested the members of the bar to abstain from the Court’s work on 24.03.2025. The language of the resolution being absolutely unambiguous and clear, there cannot be any other understanding of the said resolution. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant to the effect that she has misunderstood Page No.# 5/6 the said resolution to mean cessation from work does not inspire confidence of this court. 10. It is well settled that the power of restoration is discretionary; however, this court cannot exercise the said discretion as a matter of course. The onus is on the applicant seeking restoration to show sufficient cause for non-appearance. Legal profession is a noble profession. An advocate not only has an obligation towards his or her client, who has engaged him or her, but also has an obligation towards the court as an officer of the court. An advocate is considered an officer of the court to assist the court in the matter of dispensation of justice. Such status of an advocate is recognized by passage of time by the courts. Undoubtedly, such obligations are moral. It is unfortunate that in the present case, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant did not bother to appear before this court on 24.03.2025, though was fully aware of the listing when the writ petition was called on the pretext that there would be cessation from work, despite there was no such resolution adopted by the Bar Association. When matters are listed before the courts, it is expected that the counsels appear before the court and in the event there is any difficulty for appearing, a mention is made on behalf of such counsel for an accommodation for that date. This is the basic courtesy which the counsel owes before this court. In fact, in the present case, the learned counsel for the applicant had also not disclosed before this court in the instant application whether she had participated in the sit-in-demonstration, which was held on 24.03.2025 or not. That apart, it appears that the instant application for restoration is filed in a very casual manner. Page No.# 6/6 11. Therefore, I am of the unhesitant view that the applicant has failed to make out any case warranting restoration of the writ petition to its original record. Hence, the application is bereft of any merit whatsoever. Accordingly, the restoration application stands rejected and is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant