TAMASKAR Vs. G. V. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
G. V. High Court Of Chhattisgarh
Click here to view full judgement.
A.K.PATNAIK, J. -
(1.) THE petitioner is an advocate practising in the High Court of Chhattisgarh and has a background of public service. He has filed this writ petition praying for quashing the
designation of respondents 5 to 21 as Senior Advocates of this Court and for directing
the High Court of Chhattisgarh to designate all those lawyers who had applied to be
designated as Senior Advocates by issuing appropriate writ of certiorari/mandamus.
The petitioner has also prayed for directing the High Court of Chhattisgarh to frame
separate rules for designating the lawyers as Senior Advocates by issuing appropriate
writ of mandamus.
(2.) THE petitioner who has appeared in person submitted that a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held in the case of Democratic Bar Association v. High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, reported in 2001 (5) SLR 88 : (AIR 2000 All 300) that writ
petition filed by Association of Advocates and the Advocates practising in the High
Court of Allahabad questioning the legality of the rules for designation of Senior
Advocates was maintainable. He submitted that in view of the said decision of the Full
Bench of the Allahabad High Court, the present writ petition by which designation of
Senior Advocates of this Court has been challenged, is maintainable at the instance of
We have no doubt in our mind that an Advocate of this Court has the locus standi to file a writ petition challenging the decision of the High Court to designate a Senior
Advocate. In the case of S. P. Gupta v. President of India, reported in AIR 1982 SC
149, the Supreme Court has held that practising lawyers have vital interest in the maintenance of a fearless and an independent judiciary to ensure fair and fearless
justice to the litigants and can challenge a circular issued by the Law Minister with
regard to the short term extensions of the sitting Additional Judges of High Courts and
such practising lawyers either in their individual capacity or representing Lawyers'
Association have not merely sufficient interest but special interest of their own in the
subject -matter of the writ petition. Similarly, practising lawyers of the High Court of
Chhattisgarh have sufficient interest in the subject -matter of the present writ petition
namely, designation of Senior Advocates of the High Court of Chhattisgarh and we
cannot dismiss the present writ petition at the threshold on the ground that a practising
advocate does not have any locus standi to file a writ petition challenging the
designation of Senior Advocate by the High Court. But we make it clear that when a
challenge is made by a practising Advocate to the designation of the Senior Advocate
by the Court, the Court will not interfere with the decision of the High Court to designate
an Advocate as Senior Advocate except on well settled principles of judicial review.
(3.) MR . V. G. Tamaskar next submitted that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has framed the rules in exercise of its powers under Section 34(1) read with Section 16(2)
of the Advocates Act, 1961 laying down therein the procedure for designation of Senior
Advocates as well as the manner in which the application will be filed by an Advocate
for designating him as a Senior Advocate and the manner in which such applications
will be dealt with, but the aforesaid Rules framed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
have not been followed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh while designating the
respondents 5 to 21 as Senior Advocates of this Court. Mr. Tamaskar vehemently
submitted that if respondents 5 to 21 have not been designated in accordance with the
provisions of the rules framed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, then their designation
as Senior Advocates is invalid. He submitted that till the rules for designation of Senior
Advocate are framed by the Chhattisgarh High Court, the rules framed by High Court of
Madhya Pradesh are in force and have to be applied by the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
In support of his submission he relied on the provisions of Section 25 of the M.P.
Reorganization Act, 2000.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.