J SUDARSHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitions W.P. Nos.4538 to 4542 of 1996 filed by Mrs.S. Srimathi, Mr.G. Jambunathan, Mrs.Srimathi, Mr.B.K. Moorthy and Mr.S.K. Rajagopalan respectively came up for admission on 12.4.1996. The counsel on record did not appear on that date. But, however, on his behalf, adjournment was sought for. At request, the matters were adjourned to 15.4.1996, on which date a request for adjournment was made stating that the petitioners had engaged some other counsel, viz., Dr.Krishnamurthy. Hence once again the case was adjourned to 16.4.96. On 16.4.1996 there was no representation either on behalf of the counsel on record or on behalf of the other counsel who is said to have been engaged by the petitioners. Hence the matters were posted in default list on 17.4.1996.

(2.) THE writ petitions have been filed challenging the jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras to proceed with the cases filed against the petitioners by some of the respondents in the writ petitions. As the petitioners are all advocates, having some connection with the Legal Aid Cell, which had bene restrained from functioning by order dated 14.12.1993 in W.P. No.17145 of 1993 which was later on disposed of by a Division Bench on 26.4.1995, giving directions to the police authorities, I have my own doubt with regard to the genuineness of these proceedings. Hence on 17.4.1996 when Dr.Krishnamurthy, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioners, I told him that if the petitioners appear before this Court and file an affidavit stating that they have no connection with the Legal Aid Cell any longer, then only the matter can be heard on merits. On the request of the counsel, the matter was adjourned to 19.4.1996.

(3.) ON enquiry Mr.Jai Sudarshan represented that both the above said petitioners Mr.B.K. Moorthy and Mrs.Srimathi had left the Legal Aid Cell on 1.10.1993 and since then they had set up practice at Delhi.