R C PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Advocate practising at Jabalpur. By this writ petition, he has challenged the constitutional validity of the M.P. Adhivakta Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam). He has also made a prayer that affixing any Adhivakta Kalyan stamps contemplated by the impugned Adhiniyam, be prohibited by a suitable writ or direction.

(2.) We have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person, Shri M.V. Tamaskar, learned Addl. Advocate General for respondent No. 1 and Shri R.P. Verma for respondents 2 and 3. We have also heard Shri Y.S. Dharmadhikari who, as requested by the Court on an earlier occasion, assisted the Court as an amicus curiae.

(3.) For the petitioner, it has been urged that the State Legislature was not competent to enact the impugned adhiniyam, particularly in so far as it related to the filing of memorandum of appearance or Vakalatnama by an Advocate practising in the High Court. Reliance in support of this submission was placed on entry 78 of List I of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.