- (1.) This is an extremely unfortunate case. Petitioner appears to be a wealthy person who is in a habit of changing the Counsel. Before Board of Revenue, Lucknow Revision No. 979 (LR)/2012-13 District Kanpur Nagar is pending in which Uttam Kumar and petitioner Rajeshwari are applicants. The opposite parties are Deputy Collector, Kanpur Vikas Pradhikaran, Kanpur and State of U.P. Sri J.N. Chamber, Judicial Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow passed an order on 29.5.2013 in the said revision stating that the revisionists had engaged two Counsel; initially Sri Santosh Tripathi was engaged and afterwards Sri Satish Tyagi was engaged and in the Court both of them quarrelled with each other and used unparliamentary language and created a scene resulting in chaos and disturbance in the Court working. Thereupon, the learned Member requested the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Lucknow to transfer the case. The Chairman accordingly transferred the case through order dated 31.5.2013 which has been challenged through this writ petition. The Courts are trained to decide the dispute between the learned Counsel appearing for rival parties but not between two learned Counsel appearing for the same party.
(2.) There is no error in the impugned order.
(3.) It is further directed these two learned Counsel i.e., Sri Santosh Tripathi and Sri Satish Tyagi shall not be permitted to appear in any case before the Board of Revenue, Lucknow. They have not maintained high standards and dignity of the profession.;