- (1.) WHEN the matter was called out, learned counsel Shri Anjay Kothari, who was initially appointed as standing counsel for the Department of the State of Rajasthan-petitioner requested to pass over this matter as he was dis-continued from the panel of standing counsel on the ground that he was short of seven years practice at the bar and in his place some other panel lawyer will appear.
(2.) THIS petition was filed by Mr. Anjay Kothari, therefore, he was directed to argue this matter because in my opinion the State Govt. cannot unilaterally change the counsel of such ground. If there was any provision then before making appointment the State Govt. should have been careful, but having appointed them and discontinuing them on this ground would be highly unfair to the young and coming-up counsel like Shri Anjay Kothari. Learned counsel Shri Kothari vehemently submitted that the Board of Revenue committed a grave error in dismissing the reference as infrutuous by its order dated 24. 8. 98 (Annex. 5 ). Initially, by an order dated 28. 4. 1998 (Annex. 3) the Collector made reference to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and later on a corrigendum and further order dated 22. 6. 98 (Annex. 4) was passed. The Board of Revenue has rejected the same on the ground that it had become infrutuous by its impugned order at Annex. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Mr. Kothari rightly urged that the Collector may be permitted to withdraw his earlier orders dated 28. 4. 98 (Annex. 3) and 22. 6. 98 (Annex. 4) respectively and he may be allowed to make a fresh reference to the Board of Revenue in accordance with law. There is lot of substance in the submission made by Mr. Kothari. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Collector, Udaipur is permitted to withdraw his earlier orders dated 28. 4. 98 (Annex. 3) and 22. 6. 98 (Annex. 4) respectively with liberty to pass fresh order in the matter and make reference to the Board of Revenue regarding land in question. Once the learned Collector is allowed to withdraw his earlier orders at Annex. 3 and 4, the impugned order at Annex. 5 dated 24. 8. 98 passed by the Board of Revenue would not survive.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, this petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions by reserving the liberty to the Collector to make a fresh reference in accordance with law to the Board of Revenue. The Collector shall make fresh reference within three months from today. On receiving the said reference the Board of Revenue shall decide the fresh reference on merits in accordance with law. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of State of Rajasthan forthwith. Before parting, I must state that in this case the State Govt. has dis-continued Mr. Anjay Kothari, who is regularly appearing before the High Court, on the ground that he is short of seven years practice at the bar, whereas, there are names of several advocates for different departments of the State Govt. as Standing Counsel and most of the advocates are not regularly appearing before the High Court nor they are known to the Court. They are continuing only because they have move than seven years of practice. At times this Court finds lot of difficulty in directing the Standing Counsel from the Panel because one or two advocates from the panel Standing Counsel, who are already busy advocates cannot be over burdened by this Court. The Chief Secretary, therefore, should apply his mind and see to it that only those advocates may be listed in the Panel of Standing Counsel, who are regularly practicing in the High Court irrespective of their standing at the bar. .;