SAGAR RAM GUPTA Vs. BANARSI DAS GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application of the returned candidate whose election was upheld while dismissing the opposite party's election petition with costs. While disposing of the election petition, I fixed the fee of the present applicant's counsel as Rs. one thousand. Except to the extent of quantum of counsel's fee to which the applicant might have been entitled as a part of the costs awarded in his favour, the rest of the amount of costs had to be fixed by the Registrar under Rule 27 (b) Chapter 4-GG, Vol. V of the Rules of this Court. Relevant part of Rule 27 (b) provides:-

(2.) THE relevant facts are not in dispute. No fee certificate was filed by the counsel for the respondent-applicant before the commencement of the arguments in the election petition. A fee certificate of Mr. Man Mohan Singh Librehan Advocate for the applicant showing receipt of Rupees five thousand as his fee from the returned candidate on April 16, 1973, was, however, filed before me on May 9, 1973, one day before the conclusion of the arguments of the election petitioner. Section 16 of the Bar Councils Act, 1926 provides that the High Court shall make rules for fixing and regulating by taxation or otherwise the fees payable as costs by any party in respect of the fees of his adversary's advocate upon all proceedings in the High Court or in any Court subordinate thereto. The rules incorporated in part I of Chapter 6-I of Vol. V of the Rules and Orders of this Court have been adopted under Section 16 of the Indian Bar Councils Act vide High Court Notification dated January 13, 1949, Rule 16 of those Rules is in the following words:-

(3.) MR. R. S. Mittal, the learned counsel for the election petitioner, has vehemently contested this application. He has firstly argued that the application is not competent as the powers of the Court to tax costs have been delegated by Rule 27 of Chapter 4-GG Volume V to the Registrar, I do not agree with this contention as it is open to the designated Judge to give directions for taxation of costs and to deal with the objections, if any, raised during the taxation proceedings. Such power is inherent in this Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has been made applicable to proceedings under the Act by operation of Section 87 of the Act. He has secondly contended that Rule 16 which requires the filing of a fee certificate before the commencement of the hearing of a case starts with a non obstante clause and must, therefore, override all other provisions. Rule 16 would no doubt override any other rule contained in the Rules and Orders framed by the High Court and would override even an order of a Judge or Judges but would not, in my opinion, override any other law for the time being in force as the non obstante clause with which that rule begins is of a restricted nature.