TIKAM CHAND AGRA Vs. REGIONAL FOOD CONTROLLER AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. Sri N. C. Upadhyay was initially counsel for the petitioner in this case. He died sometime in Dec., 1985. The petitioner alleges that he was unaware of the death of Sri N. C. Upadhyay. In Oct., 1990 he heard rumours about the dismissal of the petition. He immediately came to Allahabad and went to the office of the late Sri Upadhyay where he learnt of Sri Upadhyay's death. He then instructed Sri V. K. Chaturvedi, Advocate to find out the position of the case whereupon Sri Chaturvedi inspected the record and found that the petition had been dismissed in default by an order of this Court dated 13-8-1986.

(2.) The position that emerges is that on the date of dismissal of the petition no one represented the petitioner. Somehow, however, the name of Sri S. S. Chauhan, learned counsel who was working in the chambers of late Sri N. C. Upadhyay as his junior college appeared in the cause list even though Sri Chauhan had neither filed his Vakalatnama nor appearance slip in the case. Sri Chauhan, whom we sent for, states before us today that he had not informed the Bench Secretary that though his name appeared in the cause list, he had no instructions in the case.

(3.) Counsel being officers of the Court, the Court legitimately expects that the learned counsel whose names wrongly appear in the cause list for a party even though they have no instructions from them should inform the Court through the Bench Secretary, preferably in writing, that they have no instructions in the matter so that the Court may proceed on that basis and pass appropriate orders in the case. The Court is entitled to presume that counsel whose name appears in the cause list does in fact have instructions from the party on whose behalf his name appears.