The Gujarat High Court on Friday refused to reconsider the costs of ₹1 lakh imposed on a lawyer for filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the court's roster/sitting list [Bipin Prataprai Bhatt v The Registrar General]..A Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J Shastri had on Thursday dismissed a PIL filed by an advocate Bipin Prataprai Bhatt appearing in-person."You are an advocate with practice of 29 years and you want to file such frivolous and vexatious petitions. We will not only dismiss, if you still continue we will initiate criminal contempt," the Court had remarked. .On Friday morning, Senior Advocate Asim Pandya, the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association President, appeared before the bench requesting for the costs to be reconsidered informing the Court that the petitioner was not able to bear the same..However, the court refused the same outright. "See, it will have such a cascading effect on the judges. You just imagine my brother getting agitated, and how it has hurt.. It demoralises the institution," the Chief Justice reasoned. Justice Shastri pointedly stated that judges were working round the clock, and it was demoralising when such petitions are filed. "Mr. Pandya are you not seeing that judges are working beyond 6? Saturday, Sunday we are spending. For all these reactions?".The petitioner had filed a PIL against the Court's roster, claiming that when cases were not heard in order of filing and cases filed later were heard prior to older pending matters, the right of early hearing and speedy justice was being affected.He claimed that this practice was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution..The Court, on Thursday, discussed several judgments of the Supreme Court to end the controversy sought to be projected in the plea. It was emphasised that the Chief Justice was the master of roster, and was the authority on distribution of judicial workload.Therefore, it was found that the petitioner's apprehension was not only misplaced but misconceived.It was noted by the bench that such misadventures must be dealt with sternly. The Court further said that the practice of arguing a matter at considerable length and then seeking the court's leave to withdraw was a trick which could not be countenanced. Therefore, exemplary costs of ₹1 lakh were imposed. The petitioner attempted to apologise to the court multiple times, however, the Court remained steadfast in its stand.