JOSE Vs. DEBT RELIEF APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, who is the respondent in two appeals pending before the first respondent, the Debt Relief Appellate Authority, Kochi challenges S. 8 of the Kerala Debt Relief Act, 1977 (Act 17 of 1977) (for short 'the Act') which prohibits legal practitioners from appearing before the Tribunal and Appellate Authority PETITIONER as appellant filed application to permit him to engage a legal practitioner on his behalf. This was dismissed by the first respondent.

(2.) ON behalf of the State a counter-affidavit is filed denying the allegations in the original petition. It is alleged that the nature of the dispute to be decided by the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority is such that trained legal or judicial mind is not necessary to handle the case. It is alleged that an Advocate enrolled under the advocate's Act, 1961 has no absolute right to practise before all Courts and Tribunals. It is further stated that the provisions of the Kerala Debt Relief Act is protected under art. 31 (C) of the Constitution. A reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner in answer to the contentions raised by the State.

(3.) AT first I shall deal with the question as to whether the provisions contained in the Debt Relief Act (Act 17 of 1977) could be challenged on the ground that it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The constitutionality of the various provisions of the Debt Relief Act was considered by this Court and the Supreme court on several occasions. One of the earliest decisions is reported in Yagna moorthy Namboodiripad v. State of Kerala (1979 KLN 15 ). A Division Bench of this Court held that there is legislative competence for the State Legislature to pass the Act audit could be traced to entry 30 of List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. It was held that the Act was designed to alleviate agricultural indebtedness and the provisions contained therein are not open to challenge. It was further held that the measures taken constituted reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public.