Absconder declaration cannot be diluted by an administrative office order, and trial progress may justify refusing interference.

An administrative office order could not override a prior judicial determination declaring the respondent an absconder, and the Court treated the earlier proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure and repeated non-appearance as relevant. However, it declined to interfere with the impugned order at that stage, noting that setting it aside could delay the trial further. The respondent undertook to appear before the trial court and pay the outstanding costs, and the petition was disposed of on those conditions without substantive interference with the order under challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order staying the declaration of the respondent as an absconder ought to be set aside in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: The order under challenge had been passed on an erroneous understanding of the administrative office order, which could not override the earlier judicial determination upholding the declaration of the respondent as an absconder. The respondent's repeated non-appearance, the prior proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the dismissal of earlier challenges were relevant to the assessment. At the same time, the Court noted that interfering with the impugned order at that stage could further delay the trial, and the respondent undertook to appear before the trial court and to pay the outstanding costs.

Conclusion: The impugned order was not set aside, and the petition was disposed of with directions requiring the respondent's undertaking and payment of costs.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the trial court's order did not result in substantive interference, but the matter was concluded by imposing attendance and cost conditions to ensure progress of the trial.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative office order cannot be used to nullify or dilute a prior judicial order declaring a party an absconder, but the Court may decline to interfere if doing so would unnecessarily prolong the trial and adequate securing directions are imposed.

---