MANOHAR DEWANI Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question raised in this writ petition is whether the petitioner should be represented by an advocate during his appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority, Lieutenant governor, respondent No. 1. The facts germane to the present writ petition are as follows. The petitioner was working as Executive Engineer in the municipal Corporation of Delhi, City Zone. He was dismissed from service by Commissioner, MCD, respondent No. 2, under section 95 (2) (b) read with regulations 9 (ii) of the DMC (Control and Appeal)Regulations 1959. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Lieutenant Governor. The petitioner wanted to appear before the Appellate Court along with his advocates Mr. Vasudev lalwani and Mr. S. K. Kapoor but they were not permitted to plead the case of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, it has been prayed that the appellate Court be directed to hear the appeal of the petitioner through his counsel and he be restrained from deciding the appeal of the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has constitutional right to be defended by an advocate. He, however, very fairly admitted that there is no rule which authorises any advocate to represent the petitioner before the appellate authority. He submits that there is no rule which debars the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner should be permitted.

(3.) ARGUMENTS urged by counsel for the petitioner are bereft of force. Swamy's 'ccs (CCA) Rule (Rule 14) 8 (a) is reproduced as follows: