Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Tirupati Build Con. Prv. Ltd. ... vs Union Of India on 27 March, 2023
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
W.P. No.23372 of 2019
(M/S TIRUPATI BUILD CON PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS)
Dated: 27/03/2023
None for the petitioner.
None of the counsel authorized by petitioner in the Power of Attorney
is present.
None for the respondents.
______________________________________________________________
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;
(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 petitioner Shri Braj Kishore Nema, Shri Mukesh
Agrawal, Shri Vijayant Mishra, Shri Ayush Gupta and Ms. Megha
Nema, and counsel for respondents Shri Siddharth Sharma, Shri Shantanu
Sharma, Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Shri Rajat Lohiya, Shri Lokendra
Joshi, Shri Devendra Prajapati, Shri Shubham Manchani, Shri Mayank
Upadhyaya and Shri Mohammad Ibrahim, despite being authorized by
petitioner and respondents respectively 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
Braj Kishore Nema, Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Shri Vijayant Mishra, Shri
Ayush Gupta, Ms. Megha Nema, Shri Siddharth Sharma, Shri Shantanu
Sharma, Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Shri Rajat Lohiya, Shri Lokendra
Joshi, Shri Devendra Prajapati, Shri Shubham Manchani, Shri Mayank
Upadhyaya and Shri Mohammad Ibrahim 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 11:16:34
+05'30'
