Expressing deep concern over the disruption of judicial work in Punjab following protests against the LADC System, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday said that denial of access to justice to the common litigant “would be a failure on the part of the entire justice delivery system, which cannot be permitted.”The Bench also regretted that its oral observations on the issue had been “misquoted at certain forums.”The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor granted the parties one more opportunity for deliberations and adjourned the matter to July 30.The proceedings originated from a public interest petition filed by a practising lawyer, who raised concerns regarding the denial of access to justice to litigants on account of the ongoing protest by lawyers.When the matter first came up on July 20, petitioner Arvind Seth submitted that “protest by legitimate means is well recognised for highlighting issues of importance, but while doing so, it is not open for anyone to interfere with the administration of justice or deny access to justice to litigants.”At the court’s request, the President of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, members of the Bar Council, and senior counsel appeared before the Bench and expressed the view that the dispute ought to be resolved amicably within the Bar itself.Recording its expectation of a settlement, the Court had observed: “We hope and trust that wiser heads will prevail and this Court would not be called upon to deal with the issue raised in the present matter on the judicial side.”When the case was taken up on July 23, the Bench observed that it had been informed that discussions were underway and that there was every likelihood of the issue being resolved expeditiously. It accordingly deferred the hearing to July 27.The Bench observed that the High Court had considered the issue on the administrative side, as various representations had been received alleging misuse of the LADC System. On July 27, it circulated a detailed set of directions among Judicial Officers and Secretaries of District Legal Services Authorities to ensure greater transparency and effective implementation of the scheme.The Bench recorded that these recommendations were shared on July 27 with counsel appearing for the parties, members of the High Court Bar Association, and representatives of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, and “it was agreed that practically all concerns regarding the alleged misuse of the LADC System have been taken care of.”During the hearing on July 27, the Court also made oral observations on the prolonged disruption of judicial work. It observed that “Judges, while discharging their duties on the Bench, are in a state of temporary adoption and continue to remain part of the larger judicial family, which includes the Bar.”The Bench further “expressed its pain and anguish over the continued and prolonged blocking of access to justice to the common litigant throughout the State of Punjab for the last 27 days, which would be shameful for the justice delivery system.”On the assurance that there was every likelihood of an amicable resolution, and keeping in view the measures taken on the administrative side, the matter was deferred to July 28.When the case was taken up on Tuesday, the Bench said it had been informed that its oral observations regarding the prolonged denial of access to justice had been inaccurately projected.”Today, when the matter was taken up, we were informed that the oral observations made by the Court regarding its concern over the continued blocking of access to justice for the common man have been misquoted at certain forums,” the Bench observed.Recording its regret, the Court asserted: “We note with regret that despite the fact that detailed directions have been issued to assuage the apprehension of the members of the Bar regarding the implementation of the LADC Scheme, yet, such a concocted projection is sought to be made.”Reiterating its stand, the Bench said: “We have reiterated our sentiments to the members of the Bar that denial of access to justice to the common litigant would be a failure on the part of the entire justice delivery system, which cannot be permitted.”Accepting the request of counsel for one more opportunity for deliberations, the Bench adjourned the matter to July 30.