Ravindra Agency vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4696 MP

                                         1



              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT JABALPUR
                             W.P. No.8140 of 2019
              (RAVINDRA AGENCY AND ANOTHER VS STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS)


Dated: 27/03/2023

      None for the petitioners.
      None of the counsel authorized by petitioners in the Power of Attorney
is present.
      Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari - Government Advocate for the State.
______________________________________________________________
      In respect of a call given by the M.P. State Bar Council asking the
members of the Bar in the State of M.P. to abstain from Court work w.e.f.
23.03.2023, the Division Bench of this Court took suo moto cognizance of the
situation in WP. No.7295/2023 (In Reference (Suo Moto) vs. Chairman,
State Bar Council of M.P. & Others) and passed order on 24.03.2023, the
operative portion of which is reproduced below for ready reference and
convenience:-
   "18.        Under these circumstances, since the judgment of the Hon'ble
   Supreme Court has been violated and keeping in mind the interest of the
   poor litigants, we deem it just and necessary to issue the following
   directions:-
     (i) All the advocates throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh are
     hereby directed to attend to their court work forthwith. They shall
     represent their clients in the respective cases before the respective
     courts forthwith;
     (ii) If any lawyer deliberately avoids to attend the court, it shall be
     presumed that there is disobedience of this order and he will be faced
     with serious consequences including initiation of proceedings for
     contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act;
     (iii) If any lawyer prevents any other lawyer from attending the court
     work, the same would be considered as disobedience of these directions
     and he will be faced with serious consequences including initiation of
     proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act;
     (iv) Each of the judicial officers are directed to submit a report as to
     which lawyer has deliberately abstained from attending the court;
                                                     2



                 (v) The judicial officers shall also mention the names of advocates who
                 have prevented other advocates from entering the court premises or
                 from conducting their cases in the court;
                 (vi) Such advocates shall be dealt with seriously which may even
                 include proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act as well as being
                 debarred from practice.
                          The Registry is directed to ensure that all the respondents are

served with the notice of this petition as well as of this order forthwith.

Post after service of notice."

Despite writ of mandamus having been issued by Coordinate Bench on 24.03.2023, counsel for petitioners Shri Brijesh Kumar Mishra, Shri Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, Shri Chandra Shekhar Sahu and Shri Sameer Agrawal, despite being authorized by petitioners vide Power of Attorney, are abstaining from Court work.

This prima facie amounts to disobedience of the writ of mandamus issued on 24.03.2023 in WP. No.7295/2023.

Accordingly, Registry is directed to issue show cause notice to Shri Brijesh Kumar Mishra, Shri Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, Shri Chandra Shekhar Sahu and Shri Sameer Agrawal to explain before the next date of hearing as to why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against them for disobedience of order passed by the Division Bench on 24.03.2023 in WP. No.7295/2023.

Registry is further directed to maintain a separate file qua the contempt notice.

List after two weeks.

        (Sheel Nagu)                                                 (Virender Singh)
            Judge                                                         Judge

   Sateesh

Digitally signed by SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Date: 2023.03.31 11:13:47 +05'30'