C P SAJI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Lawyer by profession; who is stated as aggrieved of Exhibit P1 notice issued by the third respondent, whereby it has been stipulated that in all cases, the litigants and their counsel have to appear before the third respondent for executing and attesting the vakalath and petitions for sanction to engage a lawyer. The above prescription is stated as in clear contravention of R.27 of the Civil Rules of Practice, R. 32 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and also R.5(1) of the Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, which hence is sought to be set aside by this Court.

(2.) Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the second and third respondents and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the first respondent as well. The issue in volved being purely a 'question of law', no 'question of fact' is to be rebutted by filing any counter affidavit.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the party concerned is at liberty to engage any lawyer of his/her choice, by executing a vakalath which has to be done under the Civil/Criminal Rules of Practice. It is also a settled position of law that the accepting lawyer' is not supposed to attest the vakalath: which in turn has to be done by another lawyer, as held by this Court in Achuthan v. Family Court,2000 3 KerLT 951. Reliance is also sought to be placed on the decision rendered by this Court, in Moideen Bava v. Shahida, 2006 3 KerLT 763 in support of the contentions raised with regard to the incidental aspects.