Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Ratan Builders Partnership ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 March, 2023
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP. No.7441/2021
(M/S RATAN BUILDERS PARTNERSHIP FIRM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated: 27/03/2023
None of the counsel authorized by petitioner in the Power of Attorney is
present.
None of the counsel authorized by respondent No.2 & 3 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;
(v) The judicial officers shall also mention the names of advocates
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 3/31/2023
11:52:46 AM
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 Rajesh Maindiretta, Shri Aman Rai,
Shri Ashish Kumar Dixit, Shri Ashwini Choubey, Shri Gopal Jaiswal, Shri
Harpreet Singh Virk and Shri Udit Maindiretta and counsel for respondent
No.2 & 3 Shri Siddhartha Sudhir Sharma despite being authorized by
petitioner and respondent no.2 & 3 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
Rajesh Maindiretta, Shri Aman Rai, Shri Ashish Kumar Dixit, Shri Ashwini
Choubey, Shri Gopal Jaiswal, Shri Harpreet Singh Virk and Shri Udit
Maindiretta and Shri Siddhartha Sudhir Sharma 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
mohsin
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 3/31/2023
11:52:46 AM
