PURUSHOTTAM GIRI Vs. D D C BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. While being seized of writ petition aforestated, my attention alighted on the fact that Vakalatnama filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was lacking in requisite details and consequently, certain guidelines were formulated to be followed and observed in compliance. The guidelines are excerpted below : "similar disquieting situation prevails in the subordinate Courts where according to the Bar Council Resolution dated 10-12-1989, unscrupulous elements can be seen to be playing tricks with the Courts bringing disrepute to the judiciary as well as to the dignity of the lawyers community. In my considered view there is compelling need to amend the statutory Rules pertaining to subordinate Courts as well on similar lines. Till such amendments are effected in the statutory rules, it would be in the fitness of things to circulate a copy of this judgment to all the District Judges/all the Chairman of the Tribunals/chief Secretary, U. P. Shasan Lucknow for strict compliance with the resolution of the Bar Council of the State of U. P. It may be suggested that the District Judges and all authorities concerned in State of U. P. shall maintain a register docketing complete details about the lawyers practising, which may be duly prepared upon verification of original enrolment certificates of an Advocate and whenever any Vakalatnama is filed and in case of any suspicion about the authenticity of registration/enrolment number, the same may be verified from such register and only then the matter may be processed for being presented before the Courts/tribunals etc. It may be quipped here for edification that so far as High Court is concerned Rules of the Court have already been amended and in pursuance thereof list of Advocates is being processed. " The case aforesaid was directed to be listed on 7-7-2006. Today, the case being on board was taken up in order to take stock of the progress made pursuant to the above direction.

(2.) LEARNED Standing Counsel as also Sri Pankaj Naqvi, appearing for U. P. Bar Council drew attention of the Court to some difficulty giving it the complexion of veritable difficulty being experienced by the various authorities in maintaining register so directed to be prepared and maintained pursuant to the aforesaid order. As a matter of fact, register was required by means of aforesaid order to be maintained by all concerned including the authorities of Board of Revenue, all the Tribunals, all consolidation authorities and all the revenue authorities where appearance of a lawyer is indispensable. The learned Standing Counsel suggested modification in the earlier order adding that a common register should be directed to be maintained at one place in a district to streamline the process of identification which may serve as a nodal/model register to serve the requirements in a district and ultimately, it was suggested that the earlier order of the Court may be modified accordingly.

(3.) THE matter may be listed after two months. THE progress made pursuant to the directions aforesaid will be monitored on the next date. THE learned Standing Counsel shall collate and collect information in the matter for being produced before the Court on the next date fixed in the case.