![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Tuesday, Apr 22, 2008 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other States |
![]() |
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Other States
-
Orissa
Members of the Ganjam Bar Association participating in an emergency meeting in Berhampur on Monday. BERHAMPUR: The lawyers’ of the Ganjam Bar Association were found to be divided on Monday on the issue whether the courts in the city should be allowed to reopen or not. These courts have remained closed for 139 days due to agitation by lawyers demanding establishment of a permanent bench of the High Court in the city. Administration and police are all set to reopen the district judge court in the city and other courts on its premises on Tuesday. According to police sources, 12 platoons of police forces will be deployed near the Berhampur court premises from Tuesday for the smooth reopening of the court. On last Tuesday a bench of the Orissa High Court taken serious exception to the manner in which lawyers in Berhampur and Sambalpurhad paralysed functioning of court. The High Court had directed the Superintendents of Police (SP) of Berhampur and Sambalpur to take steps so that court work was not disrupted. On Monday the Ganjam Bar Association had an emergency meeting to discuss their future course of action. Clear division could be seen among the lawyers. A group of lawyers wanted their agitation to continue in the manner it was continuing. They felt if the courts were reopened then their efforts through agitation since such a long period would go down the drains and it would weaken their demand for the permanent bench of the High Court in the city. The other group which was led by the office-bearers of the association did not want to oppose any move to reopen the courts. There were heated debates between the two groups. Distinct differenceSpeaking to The Hindu, the president of the Ganjam Bar Association, S.N. Rath admitted that there was distinct difference of opinion in the association over the issue of reopening of courts. He, however, said that majority of the lawyers did not want to interfere or oppose the attempts by administration to reopen the courts. The lawyers’ opposing it were a minority, he said. “We had never resolved to close down the courts so we are not opposed to their reopening”, he said.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2008, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|