NARENBHAI HARIDASBHAI HORA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bhunesh C. Rupera, the learned advocate appearing for the writ applicant.

(2.) Mr. Pranav Desai, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the Vakilatnama to the said effect will be filed in the registry.

(3.) Mr. Bhunesh Rupera, the learned advocate appearing for the writ applicant submitted that the writ applicant has filed the present writ application being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned communication dtd. 3/2/2022 addressed to the writ applicant by the respondent no.3 Bank stating that the "Review process for the empanelment of you is still under process and in under consideration with the competent authority Please arrange to be advised that the no action be initiated against our pending cases and be kept "As is where is". A copy of the said communication is duly produced at Annexure-E, page 52 to the present writ application. Mr. Bhunesh Rupera, the learned advocate submits that the writ applicant is an advocate since 2002 duly enrolled with as an advocate being Sanad No.G/1087/2002 with the Bar Council of Gujarat. The writ applicant is in continuous practice in various Courts of the Gujarat and regularly practicing at Taluka Court at Talala as well as in the District Court, Gir - Somnath. The writ applicant was empaneled as a penal advocate of respondent Bank since 26/11/2012. In view of the above, the respondent - Bank be directed to consider continuing the writ applicant on the penal of the Bank as an advocate to represent the respondent Bank.