A K SAWHNEY Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for following reliefs:

(3.) Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is an advocate having putting in practice more than 44 years at Bar. On 09.04.2018, a charge sheet was filed and the committal Court fixed the date on 16.04.2018 before the Sessions Judge, Kathua. It is averred in the writ petition that on 16/04/2018, the petitioner along with Mr. Aseem Kumar Sawhney, Advocate appeared before the Trial Court and filed Vakalatnama and took the signatures of the client Tilak Raj in the court itself. Thereafter, on 16.04.2018 itself the petitioner and his colleagues visited the District Jail, Kathua and made an application for meeting the client/detenue, namely, Tilak Raj. However, it is averred in the writ petition that they were not allowed to enter the SP's office for two hours and the petitioner and his colleagues were informed that they can meet the accused in the general meeting hall. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the reliefs as stated supra.