Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar Jain vs Union Of India on 27 March, 2023
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No.19026 of 2022
(MANOJ KUMAR JAIN Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS)
Dated: 27.03.2023
None of the counsel authorized by parties in the Power of Attorney is
present.
________________________________________________________________
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 3/29/2023
3:44:45 PM
2
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 Anubhav Jain, Shri Abhishek
Agrawal, Shri Anand Kumar Sharma and Shri Manish Kumar Mukhraiya
as well as counsel for the respondent Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Shri Devendra
Kumar Prajapati, Shri Lokendra Joshi, Shri Mayank Upadhyaya, Shri
Mohammad Ibrahim, Shri Rajat Lohia, Shri Shantanu Sharma, Shri
Shubham Manchani and Shri Siddharth Sharma despite being authorized by
petitioner and respondent 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
Anubhav Jain, Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Shri Anand Kumar Sharma and
Shri Manish Kumar Mukhraiya as well as Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Shri
Devendra Kumar Prajapati, Shri Lokendra Joshi, Shri Mayank
Upadhyaya, Shri Mohammad Ibrahim, Shri Rajat Lohia, Shri Shantanu
Sharma, Shri Shubham Manchani and Shri Siddharth 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
anand
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 3/29/2023
3:44:45 PM
