Allahabad High Court
Priyam Gupta Thru. Her Natural Guardian ... vs U.P. Rajya Sarkar Thru. Sachiv ... on 19 November, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76401
Court No. - 6
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 217 of 2024
Applicant :- Priyam Gupta Thru. Her Natural Guardian Mother, Archana Gupta
Opposite Party :- U.P. Rajya Sarkar Thru. Sachiv Secondary Education And Sakcharta Vibhag, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- In Person
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.,Aishvarya Mathur
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Ms. Archana Gupta, applicant in person as well as Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Aishvarya Mathur, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. In the present proceedings, the order of Coordinate Bench dated 12.11.2024 has been produced before this Court passed in Writ C No. 9633 of 2024 where it was stated that the petitioner therein had preferred a previous writ petiton being Writ C No. 6948 f 2024 whcih was dismissed as not pressed after recording the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner.
3. It seems that for the same relief a subsequent writ petition was filed by the petitioner being Writ C No. 9633 of 2024 where the writ court has treated the subsequent writ petition to be a review application in the first writ petition being Writ C No. 6948 of 2024 and subsequent writ petition was treated to be a review application and that is how the matter has been placed before this Court.
4. The mother of the petitioner submits that she had not given any instructions to her counsel to withdraw the writ petition and submits that in the interest of justice where the career of her daughter is at stake and she has not been given the subject of her choice by the respondents, she should be permitted to raise her plea and canvass her submissions in this regard. It has been stated that the first writ petition was dismissed as not pressed without considering the grievance of the petitioner on merits and further submits that great hardship will fall upon the petitioner in case the prayer made in the writ petiton is not allowed. She has further submitted despite repeated efforts, her counsel namely Sri Sunil Kumar Maurya could not be contacted.
5. It is hereby relevant to remind the counsels of the duties as enforced upon them by the client-lawyer relationship as iscussed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash v. Suresh Kumar, (2020) 13 SCC 188. It was held that:
"14. Reverting to the exposition in para 22 of the reported decision, the same reads thus: (Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society case [Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh, (2015) 7 SCC 373 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 611 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 120 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 478] , SCC p. 383)
"22. Apart from the above, in our view lawyers are perceived to be their client's agents. The law of agency may not strictly apply to the client-lawyer's relationship as lawyers or agents, lawyers have certain authority and certain duties. Because lawyers are also fiduciaries, their duties will sometimes be more demanding than those imposed on other agents. The authority-agency status affords the lawyers to act for the client on the subject-matter of the retainer. One of the most basic principles of the lawyer-client relationship is that lawyers owe fiduciary duties to their clients. As part of those duties, lawyers assume all the traditional duties that agents owe to their principals and, thus, have to respect the client's autonomy to make decisions at a minimum, as to the objectives of the representation. Thus, according to generally accepted notions of professional responsibility, lawyers should follow the client's instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that of the client. The law is now well settled that a lawyer must be specifically authorised to settle and compromise a claim, that merely on the basis of his employment he has no implied or ostensible authority to bind his client to a compromise/settlement. To put it alternatively that a lawyer by virtue of retention, has the authority to choose the means for achieving the client's legal goal, while the client has the right to decide on what the goal will be. If the decision in question falls within those that clearly belong to the client, the lawyer's conduct in failing to consult the client or in making the decision for the client, is more likely to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel."
Our Attention was also invited to para 31 of the same decision, which reads thus: (SCC p. 385)
"31. Therefore, it is the solemn duty of an advocate not to transgress the authority conferred on him by the client. It is always better to seek appropriate instructions from the client or his authorised agent before making any concession which may, directly or remotely, affect the rightful legal right of the client. The advocate represents the client before the court and conducts proceedings on behalf of the client. He is the only link between the court and the client. Therefore his responsibility is onerous. He is expected to follow the instructions of his client rather than substitute his judgment."
In addition, we may usefully refer to para 32 of the said decision, which reads thus: (SCC p. 386)
"32. Generally, admissions of fact made by a counsel are binding upon their principals as long as they are unequivocal; where, however, doubt exists as to a purported admission, the court should be wary to accept such admissions until and unless the counsel or the advocate is authorised by his principal to make such admissions. Furthermore, a client is not bound by a statement or admission which he or his lawyer was not authorised to make. A lawyer generally has no implied or apparent authority to make an admission or statement which would directly surrender or conclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such an admission or statement is clearly a proper step in accomplishing the purpose for which the lawyer was employed. We hasten to add neither the client nor the court is bound by the lawyer's statements or admissions as to matters of law or legal conclusions. Thus, according to generally accepted notions of professional responsibility, lawyers should follow the client's instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that of the client. We may add that in some cases, lawyers can make decisions without consulting the client. While in others, the decision is reserved for the client. It is often said that the lawyer can make decisions as to tactics without consulting the client, while the client has a right to make decisions that can affect his rights."
5. accordingly this Court has considered the grievance of the petitioner as well as perused the record, this Court finds that she has stated on her affidavit that she has not given her consent for withdrawal of the writ petition and even otherwise finding that the case of the petitioner has not been heard on merits, this Court finds it appropriate to recall its order dated 13.08.2024 passed in Writ C No. 6948 of 2024 and accordingly, the application for review is allowed.
7. The Order dated 1308.2024 is recalled, accordingly, writ petition being Writ C No. 6948 of 2024 is restored to its original number.
8. The Registry is directed to place the same in the list of fresh cases Monday i.e. on 25.11.2024 before appropriate Bench.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 19.11.2024/Ravi/
