SHRI ASHEM SHYAMKESHO SINGH Vs. THOKCHOM RANJAN MEETEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Shri Ng. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ respondents.

(2.) It is unfortunate that this court is called upon to decide an issue which has arisen out of the relation between the applicants and their counsel, Shri Ng. Kumar, Advocate and has nothing to do with the merit of the case. Before bringing the issue to this court, the same could have been resolved amicably by them outside the court.

(3.) This is an application filed by the applicants who are the petitioner Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 202 of 2015 praying for deleting the name of their counsel, Shri Ng. Kumar, Advocate from their vakalatnama filed before this court in the said writ petition on the ground that they have already disengaged him as their conducting counsel and accordingly, they requested him to issue a "No Objection" so that they could engage a new Advocate of their choice but to no effect. In other words, the said application appears to have been filed for determining the vakalatnama executed by them in favour of their counsel. Denying the averments made therein, a reply affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 11 has been filed wherein it is stated that the applicants have not given any instruction to Shri Ng. Kumar, Advocate for moving an application before this court for their withdrawal from the case or for deletion of their names from the array of parties and their request for giving "No Objection" was turned down by him on the ground that the engagement of another Advocate for the purpose of withdrawal from the writ petition would tantamount to making tacit aspersions against him inasmuch as people are very likely to falsely take that he has held up their instructions to withdraw from the case, thereby causing serious prejudice to his conduct and integrity. It is further stated therein that although it is the right or the discretion of the applicants to withdraw from the case or engage any Advocate of their choice but the same could not be allowed to be exercised whimsically without any reasonable cause inasmuch as such irresponsible action of unscrupulous litigants is likely to jeopardize the conduct and integrity of sincere Advocates who are none other than officers of the court and therefore, allowing the applicants to disengage him and appoint another Advocate in his place for the purpose of withdrawal from the case or for deletion of their names from the array of parties in the writ petition would, by no stretch of imagination, be a reasonable cause or a good ground. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the instant application be rejected in the interest of justice.