Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sundaradas v. Subordinate Judge - Writ Petition No. 12555 of 2003 [2003] RD-TN 366 (23 April 2003)


Dated: 23/04/2003



The Honourable Mr.Justice F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA

Writ Petition No. 12555 of 2003


W.P.M.P.Nos.15749 & 15750 of 2003

Sundaradas .. Petitioner -Vs-

Subordinate Judge


Kanyakumari District .. Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein. For Petitioner .. Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair

For Respondent .. Mr.V.Raghupathy,


:O R D E R

(The Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice) This is a pro bono publico filed by the President of Kuzhithurai Bar Association. He was also a former member of the State Legislative Assembly. He is aggrieved by the notice of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai dated 20th March 2003, which reads that Advocates' boycott, which is going on, is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in EX-CAPT.HARISH UPPAL Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR (2003 I L.W (Crl.) page 82), and as such to avoid inconvenience to the litigant public all plaint, written statement, vakalth etc. shall be filed before him in the open Court itself daily by 11.00 a.m. Hitherto, there was a box system, and that is dispensed with temporarily till the boycott is withdrawn. This is only to facilitate the litigant public, who are facing inconvenience because of the boycott call given by the advocates. 2. The petitioner, who is the President of the Kuzhithurai Bar Association, is not able to persuade his voters/lawyers to withdraw the boycott. Boycott is not only unprofessional, but is also unethical, and is expressly prohibited by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, which is the law of the land, and which has been referred to by the Subordinate Judge in the impugned notice. 3. We questioned the very locus of the petitioner to maintain this writ petition and as to what is the interest he or the advocate community has for the litigant public when they are boycotting the Courts. An Advocate who boycotts the Court or the President of the Bar Association who represents the Advocates boycotting the Courts, has got absolutely no locus to file any writ petition of this sort, and in fact, filing of this writ petition is an abuse of process of the Court and is deprecated. 4. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with exemplary costs, to act as a deterrent, quantified at Rs.25,000/- payable by the petitioner to the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within 15 days from to-day, failing which, the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, shall take such steps as available under law for enforcement of the order of payment of costs. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.15749 & 15759 of 2003 are also dismissed.



Copy to:

Subordinate Judge Kuzhithurai Kanyakumari District 


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.