ASIM KUMAR SAHANI Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the appellant (Advocate) against the order dated 26th April, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.M.P. No. 287 of 2005 - M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Krishnapada Kumbhkar, 2006(3) JCR 177 (Jhr.), whereby and whereunder, while the Registrar General of this Court was asked to lodge FIR against the writ petitioner, Krishnapada Kumbhkar for enclosing alleged forged and fabricated document with the writ petition, made certain observations against the Advocate of the petitioner, the appellant herein, and the Advocate has been warned to be very careful in future.

(2.) ONE of the questions, raised by the office, is whether the instant appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 26th April, 2006 passed in C.M.P. No. 287 of 2005 is maintainable. The other question, as raised in this case, is whether an Advocate can be warned by the High Court for the fault of his client in producing alleged forged and fabricated document.

(3.) A writ petition under Article 226 was preferred by one Krishnapada Kumbhkar (writ petitioner 6th respondent herein) against a notice dated 16th March, 2005/1st April, 2005, issued by M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'). The 6th respondent-writ petitioner was show caused as to why employment provided to him by the Company in the year 1981 be not withdrawn. Learned Single Judge of this Court, vide Order dated 17th May, 2005, while did not choose to interfere with the aforesaid notice, allowed the 6th respondent-writ petitioner to file show cause reply within three weeks and the Company was directed to decide after full opportunity of hearing to the party.