High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Purusottam Giri v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Bulandshahar & Others - WRIT - B No. 12458 of 2006  RD-AH 4882 (1 March 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12458 of 2006
Deputy Director Consolidation Bulandshahre and others...Respondents.
While hearing the above petition on 28.2.2006, it surfaced to my notice that power/Vakalatnama filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner was wanting in requisite/necessary details and hence following order was passed directing the learned counsel for the petitioner to make good the shortcomings in the power/Vakalatnama and the case was ordered to be posted up for today. The order passed by the Court is quoted below.
"It was pointed out to learned counsel for the petitioner that Vakalatnama is not filled in accordance with Bar Council Rules and amended High Court Rules. He prays for and is granted 24 hours' time to make necessary correction in the Vakalatnama.
Put up on 3.3.2006."
In connection with the above, it may be noticed that the High Court Rules were appropriately amended vide Notification No.450-VIII-C2 dated Sept 16,2005 which was published in U.P. Gazette (Part II) dated 11.6.2005 by which new Rule 2 A was added after Rule 2 of Chapter XXIV of the Rules of Court 1952 in the following manner.
"Rule 2-A: Vakalatnama or Memorandum of Appearance to contain full name, address etc. of the counsel- The Stamp Reporter/Office shall not accept any Vakalatnama or memorandum of appearance unless it bears full name of the counsel, his complete address both of High Court, chamber./office, if any and residence including telephone number (s)if any, date of signing Vakalatnama enrolment number etc."
Reverting to the defect in the Vakalatnama, it was noticed by the Court that the Vakalatnama filed in the case by the learned counsel for the petitioner neither contained full name of the counsel nor other requisite details like the full addresses of office/chamber, residence including telephone number etc. The Court feels constrained to say that in majority of Vakalatnamas being filed in the cases before this Court, requisite details as contemplated in Rule 2-A aforesaid of the Rules of the Court are conspicuous by their absence and as a result, the learned counsels for the other side often find it harrowing and difficult to locate the learned counsel ostensibly for the purposes of exchanging affidavits, serving notice/counter affidavit etc or apprising them of any information required by the Court to be given in writing in the course of a proceeding before the Court.
Besides amendment in the Rules of the Court as aforesaid, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh passed a resolution on 10.12.1989 taking cognizance of the fact that the courts are being tricked or misled by certain unscrupulous elements impersonating themselves as lawyers which in consequence has lowered the status/dignity of the lawyers in the estimation of the society, directing that the lawyers appearing in a particular case shall invariably disclose/mention registration number/enrolment number. It was further resolved in the resolution that failure on the part of lawyers in mentioning their registration/enrolment number shall be treated as professional misconduct. The resolution so passed is excerpted below for ready reference.
Prastav Sankhya 869/1989
"Praye Yeh Dekhne Ko Mil Raha Hai Ki Kuchha Byakti Adhivakta Na Hote Hue Bhi Nyayalayon Me Adhivakta Ban Kar Vakalat Ka Karya Kar Rahe Hain Aur Badkarioyn Tatha Nyayalayon Ko Dhoka De Rahe Hai Jisse Adhivakta Samaj Ki Garima Bhi Gir Rahi Hai. Bar Council Yeh Nishchaya Karti Hai Ki Pratyek Adhivakta Apen Vakalatname Mai Athva Parcha Advocate Mai Apna Naam Ishpashta Roop Se Likhega Aur Saath Hi Adhivakta Panjikaran Sankhya Bhi Likhega. Yeh Bhi Nishchey Hua Ki Is Prastav Ki Pratilipi Pratyek Janpad Evam Samasta Nyayadhikarano Mai Samuchit Karyavahi Hetu Preshit Kar Di Jaye."
Tadanusar Adhivaktaon Ke Achran Sambandhi Niyam Mai Nimnalikhit Niyam Banaye Jate Hai.:
"Pratyek Adhivakta Kisi Bhi Nyayaley Mai Apna Vakalatnama Ya Parcha Aur Esa Na Karna Vyavsayik Duracharan Mana Jayega."
It would thus be clear that resolution of the Bar council followed by amendment in the Rules of the Court by adding Section 2 A concurrently envisage that complete details including full name, complete address of office and residence including phone number, enrolment number have invariably to be disclosed. Both the Rules of the Court and resolution of the Bar council clearly postulate that no Vakalatnama or memorandum of appearance shall be accepted by courts or tribunals functioning in State of U.P. unless they are complete in all requisite details as provided. In this connection Section 35 of the Advocates Act may also be referred to which defines misconduct and speaks of disciplinary enquiry into the allegations of professional or other misconduct.
As stated supra, legal profession is a noble profession and a legal practitioner has been called an integral part of the justicing system and he is thus in a sense a member of the body judicial. In Bar Council of Maharasthra v. M.V.Dabholkar (AIR 1976 SC 242, Iyer ,J said that "the vital role of the lawyer depends upon his probity and professional life-style. The central function of the legal profession is to promote the administration of justice. As monopoly to legal profession has been statutorily granted by the nation, it obligates the lawyer to observe scrupulously those norms, which make him worthy of confidence of community in him as a vehicle of social justice". The Preamble to the Bar Council of India Rules postulates that "An advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court, a privileged member of the community, and a gentleman, bearing in the mind that what may be lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the bar in his non-professional capacity may still be improper for an Advocate. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing obligations, an Advocate shall fearlessly uphold the interests of his client, and in his conduct conform to the rules hereinafter mentioned both in letter and spirit.
The Bar Council has, in the matter of practice of professions of law mentioned in Section 30 of the Act, subjected the Advocates to certain restrictions. Section 1, Chapter II of the Bar council of India Rules mentions duty of an Advocate to the Court. Section II Chapter II mentions duty of an Advocate to the client and Section III mentions duty of an Advocate to Opponent while Section IV postulates duty to colleagues. These duties have been envisaged with a view to protecting the dignity of the legal community besides upholding the confidence of general places in the efficacy of law. In the event of any breach by a member of legal profession, the Bar Council is authorized with the power to initiate disciplinary action/proceeding in order to protect the dignity of the legal profession. It is in this perspective, considering that unscrupulous elements posing themselves as lawyers are bringing disrepute to the legal profession, the Bar Council appropriately passed the resolution aforestated to put check on counterfeit lawyers. Besides the mandatory requirement as contemplated in the amended Rules of the Court, I find myself in complete agreement with the resolution that though legal profession has been a noble profession such unscrupulous elements have crept into this profession and are bring disrepute to the profession. One such case has forced itself upon the notice of the Court in which Court was compelled to refer the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Azamgarh for enquiry.
In writ petition no. 43255 of 2001, which this Court is seized of, the disquieting feature noticed by the Court was that the said petition was filed by a person personating himself as Ram Kesh petition. Subsequently, a person swearing himself to be Ram Kesh appeared before the Court through Sri P.C. Srivastava, Advocate claiming himself to be Ram Kesh and stated that he never filed the aforesaid petition. Learned counsel who filed the petition on behalf of the petitioner on being asked to produce the petitioner, made a statement across the bar that despite his best efforts nobody has responded. It would however appear from a scrutiny of the Vakalatnama that the aforesaid Ram Kesh has been identified by one Lalta Yadav, who according to the petitioner's counsel is an Advocate though it is not disclosed as to where the aforesaid Lalta Yadav has been practising. In the above perspective, the Court was compelled to refer the matter to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh for enquiry and report.
Reverting to Rules of the Court, it is clearly postulated in Rule 2-A of the Rules of Court that the Stamp reporter/office shall not accept any Vakalatnama or memorandum of appearance unless it bears full name of the counsel, his complete address both of High Court, chamber/office if any and residence including telephone number (s) if any, date of signing Vakalatnama, enrolment number etc.
Since in the instant case, the learned counsel was asked to remove defect and he has since removed the defects consistent with the mandate of Rule 2 A of the Rules of the Court, I am disinclined to proceed further in this regard. However, in the facts and circumstances, considering that the Courts are deluged with Vakalatnamas/memos of appearance incomplete in requisite details I feel called to issue judicial fiat directing stamp reporter not to accept Vakalatnama/memo of appearance in any case unless they are complete in all requisite details as embodied in Rule 2-A of the Rules of Court.
In the above conspectus, it is hereby mandated that the Stamp reporter of the Court/Office shall scrutinize the Vakalatnama very closely and unless they are complete in all requisite details as embodied in Rule 2-A of the Rules of the Court, he will not allow the petition to be processed for being presented before the Court.
Similar disquieting situation prevails in the subordinate courts where according to the Bar Council Resolution dated 10.12.1989, unscrupulous elements can be seen to be playing tricks with the Courts bringing disrepute to the judiciary as well as to the dignity of the lawyers community. In my considered view there is compelling need to amend the statutory Rules pertaining to subordinate courts as well on similar lines. Till such amendments are effected in the statutory rules, it would be in the fitness of things to circulate a copy of this judgment to all the District Judges/all the Chairmen of the Tribunals/Chief Secretary, U.P. Shasan Lucknow for strict compliance with the resolution of the Bar Council of the State of U.P. It may be suggested that the District Judges and all authorities concerned in State of U.P shall maintain a register docketing complete details about the lawyers practising, which may be duly prepared upon verification of original enrolment certificates of an Advocate and whenever any Vakalatnama is filed and in case of any suspicion about the authenticity of registration/enrolment number, the same may be verified from such register and only then the matter may be processed for being presented before the Courts/Tribunals etc. It may be quipped here for edification that so far as High Court is concerned Rules of the Court have already been amended and in pursuance thereof list of Advocates is being processed.
Registrar General is directed to ensure strict compliance with the above directions henceforth. As stated supra, a copy of this judgment be circulated to all authorities including Chairmen of various Tribunals functioning in the State of U.P. and Chief Secretary, U.P.Shasan Lucknow for onward transmission and compliance in all courts including Revenue as well as Consolidation courts within four months. The matter may be listed on 7.7.2006 for monitoring the compliance with the directions aforestated.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.