PALLAV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing of this petition, the following

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Advocate practicing before this Court for last more than 19 years and during this period, his professional career remained unblemished and there was no complaint whatsoever against him. Counsel submits that at the time of arguments in the case of Surendra Pal Singh Sahni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., before this Court in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 548/2024, certain adverse remarks have been passed by this Court while passing the order dtd. 8/2/2024 in para Nos. 9, 10 and 11. Counsel submits that before passing the aforesaid adverse remarks against the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was provided to him, which would affect his future professional career. Counsel submits that the petitioner being a professional and Officer of this Court has highest regard to the majesty of the law and he cannot even think to disobey and disregard the Court by any act of indiscipline or misbehavior. Counsel submits that an additional affidavit has been submitted on 11/12/2024, wherein the petitioner has submitted that from the bottom of his heart, he reiterates that he holds this Court in high esteem and expresses regret, if this Hon'ble Court feels and believes that the alleged demeanour of the petitioner was not above board.

(3.) Counsel submits that even the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Garg Vs. Sarita Rani & Ors. reported in (2021) 9 SCC 92 and in the case of Dushyant Mainali Vs. Diwan Singh Bora & Anr. [SLP(C) No. 15191/2022] has held that before making any adverse remark, even against a Lawyer, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given and the principle of natural justice is required to be followed, as nobody can be condemned unheard. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the adverse remarks passed against the petitioner in para Nos. 9, 10 and 11 be expunged in the interest of professional career of the petitioner. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Mohd. Naim, reported in AIR 1964 SC 703.