Sanskardhani Hospital Private ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4949 MP

                                    1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT JABALPUR
                             WP No. 2036 of 2023
  (SANSKARDHANI HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                     AND OTHERS)

Dated : 27-03-2023
      Advocate is not appearing for petitioners.

      Shri Dr. Vivek Kumar Golchha - Director of Hospital/party is present
in person.
      Shri Prashant Kumar Vaishy - Respondent/Intervener in person.

Shri Praveen Namdeo - Government Advocate for the State.

Shri Vivek Kumar Golchha - Director of petitioners' Hospital/party makes a prayer for continuation of interim order.

On being asked regarding appearance of his Advocate, he failed to explain absence of Advocate in the case.

Shri Prashant Kumar Vaishy, respondent/intervener present in person and makes a request for hearing in the matter. He informed that Advocate is abstaining from Court work, therefore, his Advocate is not appearing.

Since, Intervener is appearing personally and he wants to argue the case, therefore, he is heard.

Advocate who is appearing on behalf of Interverner is discharged. He submitted that his Identity Card to establish his identity and submitted that he is complainant in the case. On his complaint action initiated against the petitioner. In these circumstances, he may be permitted to intervene in the case.

Heard.

It is informed that Intervener is a Journalist and he is intervening in this petition in public interest. He had never taken any treatment in petitioners'

hospital but he had personally went to said hospital and had examined the same.

Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that Intervener does not have any locus standi. Court is not considering Public Interest Litigation, therefore, in absence of any locus standi in the case, application for Intervention, is dismissed.

Interverner wants permission to file an application for vacating interim order dated 25.01.2023.

Since, application for intervention has already been dismissed, therefore, at this stage permission cannot be granted to file said application.

Matter will be heard considering on its merits on basis of reply which will

be filed by the State Government and pleadings made by petitioner in petition.

Division Bench of this Court has taken suo motu cognizance of communication made by Chairman of State Bar Council of M.P asking entire Lawyer community in State of M.P. to abstain from Court work.

In PIL vide order dated 24.3.2023 passed in WP No.7295/2023 in para- 18 following directions were issued:-

"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.

Division Bench had issued directions to Advocates to attend the Court work forthwith and to represent their clients in their respective cases. If abstention from work is deliberate then Advocate will have to face serious

consequences including initiation of contempt petition.

In view of same, as Advocates for the parties are not appearing in the case, Registry is directed to issue show cause notice to counsel for the petitioner(s) as well as counsel for the respondent(s) whose name appear in the Vakalatnama to give explanation why Contempt Proceedings may not be

initiated against him/her/them for deliberate violation of order dated 24.3.2023 passed in W.P No.7295/2023.

Notices shall not be issued to Government Advocates appearing for State since they remained present in Court and complied with directions passed in WP No.7295/2023.

Interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date of hearing. List the matter in week commencing 01.05.2023.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE

shabana Digitally signed by SHABANA ANSARI Date: 2023.03.28 14:35:53 +05'30'