NARESH GOVIND VAZE Vs. HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the petitioner-in-person as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner, a Law Graduate and a former Judicial Officer, has raised a challenge to the Notification dtd. 9/9/2015 notifying the 'Rules for Presentation and Conduct of Proceedings in Person by Parties' (for short, the said Rules) principally on the ground that the said Rules prevent a party-in-person from appearing before the Court and arguing his / her case in person. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that on 21/7/2016, the petitioner had appeared in person in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.19347 of 2016. The Division Bench hearing the said writ petition required the petitioner to appear before the Committee of two Officers of the Registry in accordance with Rule 2 of the said Rules. According to the petitioner, a party litigating cannot be denied the right of audience at the threshold of the litigation and the same offends the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Requiring a party who desires to appear in person to appear before the Committee defeats the right of such party to put-forth his / her say in the matter before the Court. It is thus prayed by the petitioner that the said notification be quashed and it be declared that a party-in-person desiring to appear before the Court is not required to first appear before the Committee constituted under Rule 2 of the said Rules.

(3.) The petitioner-in-person as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent have placed on record their written notes of arguments. Compilation of various documents, including the decisions sought to be relied upon are also placed on record. It is in this backdrop that the challenge as raised by the petitioner-in-person is being considered.