Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Smt. Manisha Chandrakant Gosavi ... on 9 November, 2022
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
1-WP.3822.2022
jvs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3822 OF 2022
The State of Maharashtra }
& Ors. } Petitioners
versus
Smt. Manisha Chandrakant }
Gosavi & Anr. } Respondents
Mr. S. K. Nair, Special Counsel with Mr. N. K.
Rajpurohit, AGP, Ms. Reshma Kurle for the
petitioners.
Mr. Sumant Deshpande i/b. Mr. Pritesh K.
Bohade for respondent no. 1.
Mr. Vikey Nagrani with Ms. Kimaya Godbole,
newly appointed for respondent no. 1.
CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ. &
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 9, 2022
P.C.:
1. Pursuant to the earlier order of 18th October 2022, Mr.
Deshpande, learned advocate appears on behalf of the
respondent no. 1 and tenders unconditional apology for not
remaining present on that date.
2. Mr. Nagrani, learned advocate also appears for the
respondent no. 1 and submits that he now has instructions
to represent the respondent no. 1. We are also informed
that the respondent no.1 has executed fresh vakalatnama in
favour of Ms. Kimaya Godbole, learned advocate.
3. It would be relevant in this context to note what is
provided in the Rules framed by this Court under section
1-WP.3822.2022
34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Rule 8(4) under Schedule
VII appended to Chapter XXXII of the Rules reads as under:
"(4) When an Advocate who has filed a Vakalatnama
for a party wishes to withdraw his appearance he shall
serve a written notice of his intention to do so on his
client at least seven days in advance of the case
coming up for hearing before the Court. Leave of the
Court to withdraw appearance may also be applied for
if the client has instructed the Advocate to that effect.
The Advocate shall file a note in writing requesting the
Court for permission to withdraw appearance and shall
also file along with the note the letter of the client
instructing him to withdraw his appearance or a copy
of the intimation given to the client as above together
with its written acknowledgement by the client. The
Court if it is satisfied that no inconvenience is likely to
be caused to the Court or the client may permit the
Advocate to withdraw his appearance and while
permitting the Advocate to do so may also impose
such terms and conditions as it may deem proper
either in public interest or in the interest of the
parties."
4. We regret to record that fresh vakalatnama has been
executed by the respondent no.1 without adhering to the
aforesaid provision. Whether such fresh execution of
vakalatnama and consequent change of advocate-on-record
would inconvenience the Court has not been borne in mind
by her. The respondent no.1 may not be aware of the Rules
framed by this Court for Advocates but it was the duty of
both Mr. Pritesh K. Bohade and Ms. Kimaya Godbole,
learned advocates, to appropriately advise her on the
procedures to be followed in this Court. We do not wish to
pardon recurrence of such non-adherence to the Rules by
the learned advocates practicing in this Court and the
Registry is directed to be careful in future while accepting
vakalatnama filed by freshly appointed advocates. In any
1-WP.3822.2022
case where inconvenience of the Court could be perceived,
the party/freshly appointed advocate-on-record should be
directed to obtain permission from the Court before
withdrawal of appearance by the original advocate-on-
record.
5. Since we had heard the writ petition on its merits
almost entirely on a previous occasion, i.e., on 14th October
2022, and hearing was adjourned on that date only to
enable Mr. Nair, learned special counsel for the petitioners
to obtain instructions, we do not appreciate the conduct of
the respondent no. 1 in seeking to have her advocate-on-
record changed on the verge of completion of oral hearing
causing inconvenience to the Court.
6. Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion
that interest of justice is best served if the parties to the lis
are granted effective opportunity of placing their respective
cases. Mr. Nair as well as Mr. Deshpande having been heard
on the merits of the writ petition, we decline any further
oral hearing as prayed for by Mr. Nagrani. However, to allay
any apprehension of the respondent no. 1 that her case
needs to be placed before us in a better way, we grant her
an opportunity to file written note of arguments by 14th
November 2022.
7. Since Mr. Nagrani has placed reliance on the decision
of the Supreme Court in 'X' vs. Registrar General, High
Court of Madhya Pradesh and anr., reported in 2022
SCC OnLine 171 SC, Mr. Nair shall be at liberty to put in a
supplementary note of arguments to distinguish such
decision by 14th November 2022.
1-WP.3822.2022
8. We place on record Mr. Nair's submission that his
written note of arguments is already on record.
9. Hearing stands concluded; judgment is reserved.
(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally
signed by
SALUNKE
SALUNKE J V
JV Date:
2022.11.11
18:55:16
+0530
