TAMASKAR Vs. G. V. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(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 the petitioner.

(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.