NAGAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKMAGALUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though in this writ petition, the order passed by respondent 1 who is the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur District, as well as the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere Sub-Division (respondent 2) have been challenged, a very unusual feature is involved not encountered before by this Court. The Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to dismiss the appeal on merits overlooking the fact that the memorandum of appeal presented before him by the petitioners remained unsigned by the Counsel for the appellants therein and without even the vakalath not having been signed by the same Counsel. The additional highlight is that neither the vakalath nor the memorandum of appeal bear the dates on which the appeal was presented and vakalath was executed by the Parties.

(2.) In these circumstances, the question which arises for consideration is whether the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner deserves to be quashed.

(3.) Apart from considering the feasibility of quashing the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, what is most disquieting is the carelessness with which the brief of the clients has been handled by the Counsel who appeared before the Deputy Commissioner. Preferring a memorandum of appeal devoid of both the date and signature of the Counsel himself is the height of carelessness. Added to that, non-signing of the vakalath and presenting the same along with the unsigned memorandum of appeal is indeed a sad commentary on the Counsel who was entrusted with the task of prosecuting the appeal and safeguarding the interests of the appellants who had reposed implicit faith and confidence in the Counsel. As in some other case which was disposed of by this Court, in the context of the deplorable negligence in the handling of the appeal, I am tempted to recall the liability to malpractice action which is recognised and enforce in some of the Western Countries where the Counsel is found careless whether intentional or otherwise in the conduct of the cases of the client entailing serious consequences both in terms of money and continuation of practice as a legal practitioner. If instances of this nature increase in number, probably the day is not far of when sensible persons would consider it necessary to introduce similar regulations in our Country also. One thing is certain and that is that the lack of diligence does not inspire confidence.