RAJKUMAR PATEL Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner appears in person. He submits that this petition is pending since 7.12.2014 and even in the past whenever the matter was listed the Advocates engaged by him expressed inability to appear before the Court because of the call given by the Bar Association to boycott the Court.

(2.) He submits that in view of the urgency he cannot wait any further as the Truck seized by the respondent-Authority is the only source of income for the petitioner. He submits that he may be permitted to discharge the Advocate engaged by him who has expressed inability to appear before the Court today.

(3.) The petitioner was counseled that in that case later on the petitioner will not be permitted to insist for rehearing of the case on the ground that on the earlier occasion the matter was not argued by the Advocate. The petitioner has understood the consequences of discharging the Advocate and is yet determined to argue the case personally. He accepts that if the petition is dismissed he will not resort to filing of an application for restoration of writ petition on the ground that his Advocate be permitted to argue the case afresh. On that understanding, we have allowed the petitioner to discharge his Advocate namely Shri R. M. Sharma, Advocate.