Dharam Veer Sharma, J. - (1.) The petitioner, a practising advocate, has initiated the Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction. He has prayed for following reliefs: (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite parties to ensure that no advocate who is connected/associated with a Judge or he has been a counsel for or against such Judge, be allowed or made to appear in his Court and to further ensure that their cases are not listed before such Hon'ble Judges; (ii) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem, fit and proper in the interest of Justice; (iii) allow the petition with costs.
(2.) The petitioner has argued that no advocate should appear before any Judge with whom they are connected or associated in any manner. In case. if any counsel has ever been engaged by a Judge before or after his elevation, then the counsel should not be allowed to plead and act before a learned Judge as it will restore confidence of masses in judicial system and maintain glory of the institution. As such it was suggested that no lawyer or lawyers should be allowed to appear before the Hon'ble Judge during his tenure and suitable directions may be Issued to opposite parties to ban the appearance of such lawyer before the Hon'ble Judges to whom they are associated or connected or at any point of time put in their appearance on their behalf of any Court/Tribunal.
(3.) The petitioner has argued that he has a sufficient Interest in the proceeding has locas standi and can approach the Court. We have given our anxious thoughts to the facts of the case.;