Advocates are to be disciplined, under a recent order from the Telangana High Court to the State Bar Council.
The petition, which declared respondent No. 2's action in issuing the unnumbered Notice dated 30.03.2024 to be illegitimate and arbitrary, was being considered by the bench of Justice T. Vinod Kumar.
In this instance, the petitioner was chosen to serve as both the 4th respondent Municipality's chairperson and ward member. She argues that the 2nd respondent acted unethically on March 30, 2024, by sending out a notification without a valid ROC number, even though they were aware of the upcoming Parliamentary elections. As a result, the petitioner requests that the previously indicated notification be suspended.
The petitioner's attorney stated that even though the matter concerns the Adibatla Municipality, it was issued with the signature of the third (3rd) who is unrelated to the Municipality's operations, and that the notice's purpose is left unspecified.
Speaking on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 through 3, the government leader stated that the petitioner's assertion that she is still the chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality is incorrect. The petitioner was removed from the position on February 9, 2024, as a result of a no-confidence motion, and the government has since issued a G.O. Ms. No.55 M.A. & U.D department, dt. 23.03.2024, notifying that the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner was successful, creating a temporary vacancy in the petitioner's position.
Furthermore, it was argued that the petitioner's continued claims to be the Chairperson in both the Writ Petition's cause title and the affidavit supporting her only serve to highlight the fact that the petitioner approached this court by omitting relevant facts, despite having unsuccessfully challenged the move of No-confidence made against her and being fully aware that she does not hold the position of Chairperson of the Municipality.
The High Court investigated the actions of the petitioner's attorney, who attempted to address the court on April 4, 2024, in an intimidating and high-pitched manner, in an attempt to bring up the matter that had been ordered to be listed before the Court on April 3, 2024.
The bench noted that the conduct of the Counsels addressing the Court in a high decibel, of late has become a regular practice in order to deter the Court from either taking up or not taking up their cases. The said conduct on the part of the Counsel which obstructs the administration of justice amounts to Misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act having a wider import.
After reviewing the P.D. Gupta v. Ram Murti case in more detail, the High Court noted that lawyers who engage in such behaviour endanger both their professional careers and the goodwill of the bench by failing to recognise that they are not only expected to handle cases fairly, but also serve as court officers.
The bench discovered that the petitioner in this Writ Petition has contested a notice that was sent to her asking her to attend a special meeting, claiming the notice was founded on unfounded and irrelevant claims. The petitioner, who was the municipality's chairperson for more than three years prior, doesn't appear to understand fundamental processes like choosing a new chairperson or how to a No-confidence motion, despite having gone through both experiences throughout her employment. The petitioner's actions demonstrate her belief in using the approbate and reprobate approaches to suit her convenience and her selected
High Court opined that Rule 4 of the Rules notified under G.O.Ms. No. 18 also provides for the Gazetted Officer authorized by the District collector to call for special meeting of the members of the Municipality. Thus, the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned notice dated 30.03.2024 does not suffer from any infirmity for it to be called in question as the is in accordance with the Notification and the Rules.
The bench determined that the petitioner's allegation about the third respondent's notice was baseless. The petitioner did not present any proof that they had contacted the appropriate authorities to inquire about the rationale behind setting the meeting date or the consent granted to the third respondent. The Telangana State Election Commission's notification was also followed in the issuance of the notice.
The Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and Others v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and Others case, in which it was held that "A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow," was cited by the High Court. It is not advisable for others to follow the same course in the mistaken belief that they would receive tolerance from the courts. Exemplary expenditures are unavoidable, if not essential, to guarantee that the truth is not prioritized in litigation, as is the case with the law practiced in our nation.
In view of the above case, the bench dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Bench: Justice T. Vinod Kumar
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 8719 OF 2024
To get free legal advice: click here
For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here
