Telangana High Court

Poosa Narender vs The State Of Telangana on 3 January, 2025

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G. Radha Rani

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

                                    &

         THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

                 WRIT PETITION No.32875 OF 2024

ORDER:

(per Hon'ble Dr. Justice G.Radha Rani)

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner to issue a writ or

direction preferably a Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings of

the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide ROC.No.1657/2006-C3 dated

06.11.2006 and Circular Dis.No.4214 dated 05.11.2024 as null and

void and consequently to set aside the same and to direct the

respondent No.3 to issue fresh circular to all the Judicial Officers in

Khammam Judicial Unit, cancelling the above circular.

2. The Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing with the consent of

both the parties at the stage of admission itself.

3. Heard Ms.P.Manasa, learned counsel representing Sri Surya

Balu Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioner on record and

Sri Vivek Jain, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court for the

State of Telangana for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

earlier worked in the Judicial Department in Khammam Unit. While

working as a copyist in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

SP, J & Dr.GRR, J wp_32875_2024

Manuguru, he was transferred to the Judicial Unit of Vizianagaram.

He challenged the said unit transfer. Subsequently, he did not pay

any interest upon the said matter, as he was doing agriculture apart

from other business. He was having legal disputes with several

persons with regard to the properties. He needed to attend in the said

cases as party-in-person. On 05.11.2024, the respondent No.3 issued

a circular vide Dis.No.4214 dated 05.11.2024 addressing all the

Judicial Officers working in Khammam Headquarters instructing them

not to permit the petitioner to enter into their respective Courts to

implement the impugned proceedings of the High Court of Andhra

Pradesh vide ROC.No.1657/2006-C3 dated 06.11.2006. The

respondent No.3 strictly directed the Judicial Officers and CAO /

CMOs not to allow the petitioner to enter into the respective premises,

failing which the same would be viewed seriously.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

said circular was against the rights of the petitioner under Article 21

of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner was at liberty to avail his

legitimate rights to enter into the public court premises. The

respondents 2 and 3 could not issue such impugned proceedings

denying the rights of the petitioner. The proceedings issued by the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh were also not communicated to the

petitioner at any point of time during the previous 18 years. All of a

SP, J & Dr.GRR, J wp_32875_2024

sudden, the erroneous circular vide Dis.No.4214 dated 05.11.2024

was issued by respondent No.3, due to which the petitioner was

denied right to contest in several legal matters pending before different

Courts in Khammam Headquarters as party-in-person. As such, it

was just and necessary to declare the proceedings of the High Court of

Andhra Pradesh vide ROC.No.1657/2006-C3 dated 06.11.2006 and

circular vide Dis.No.4214 dated 05.11.2024 as null and void and

required to direct respondent No.3 to issue fresh circular to all the

Judicial Officers cancelling the circular vide Dis.No.4214 dated

05.11.2024, lest, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and

injury.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the High Court for the State of

Telangana on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 submitted that infact, the

fax notification ROC.No.1657/2006-C3 dated 06.11.2006 was the

subject matter of the writ prayer in W.P.No.24078 of 2006 filed by the

petitioner. The said Writ Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution

on 18.01.2007. The petitioner had not disclosed the number and

details of the Writ Petition filed by him challenging his transfer before

this Court. Initially, a restoration petition was filed by way of affidavit

dated 09.04.2007, but, however the same was returned with office

objections on 11.04.2007. It was re-submitted on 19.04.2015 seeking

to condone the delay of 3031 days vide I.A.No.1 of 2015 in

SP, J & Dr.GRR, J wp_32875_2024

W.P.No.24078/2006 in W.P.No.24078 of 2006, which was also

ultimately dismissed on 25.10.2018, as the petitioner was not keen to

contest or pursue the said matter.

5.1. Learned Standing Counsel for the High Court for the State of

Telangana further submitted that the respondent No.3 addressed a

letter dated 01.07.2006 to the Registrar General of the High Court

narrating several instances of mischief by the petitioner, whereby he

misused his position as a Court Officer, his involvement in criminal

cases, harassment of court staff, misbehavior with female members,

stealing of case papers, disciplinary proceedings and enquiries, etc.,

In view of disruption caused by the petitioner in the premises of the

Khammam District Court hindering smooth functioning of judicial

proceedings, the learned District Judge requested for transfer of the

writ petitioner from Khammam District to any other unit. In pursuant

to the proceedings, the fax notification ROC.No.1657/2006-C3 dated

06.11.2006 was issued ordering transfer of the petitioner from

Khammam Court to Vizianagaram Court while also barring entry of

the petitioner in the premises of the Khammam District Court. The

transfer proceedings were also issued simultaneously. However, by

proceedings dated 30.03.2007 of the learned District Judge,

Vizianagaram, the petitioner was later placed under suspension for

not joining his duties at Vizianagaram, disobeying the transfer orders.

SP, J & Dr.GRR, J wp_32875_2024

All throughout from 06.11.2006, the petitioner did not question the

said order of barring his entry to the Court until filing of the present

Writ Petition. On 13.06.2024, the petitioner appeared before the

Principal District Judge, Khammam in O.S.No.134 of 2015 without

taking prior permission to prosecute his case and behaved with

immense disregard towards the Bench and the Court Officers and

disrupted the Court proceedings. The petitioner was time and again

disturbing the decorum of Court proceedings by troubling the judicial

staff and officers by indulging in lodging false complaints against them

/ hurling harsh language during the proceedings. Therefore, the

petitioner was barred from entering the Court premises of Khammam

District Court and placed the notification issued by the High Court

prescribing the norms for presentation and conduct of proceedings in

person by parties. He relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the

High Court in Suo motu Contempt Case No.684 of 2002 and

W.P.No.15479 of 2001 in C.C.J.Papa Rao v. Government of A.P., I

and CAD Department and others 1 , wherein the parameters

applicable to parties appearing in person were stated.

6. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit showing the number of

cases pending against him before various Courts in Khammam

District, wherein he was appearing as party-in-person. The said

(2003) 1 ALT 357 (DB)

SP, J & Dr.GRR, J wp_32875_2024

document would disclose that the petitioner was appearing as party-

in-person even after the issuance of the fax notification

ROC.No.1657/2006-C3 dated 06.11.2006. But only after the issuance

of the circular by the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam vide

Dis.No.4214 dated 05.11.2024, he was barred from entering into the

Court premises in Khammam.

7. A Court is a public place and every citizen of India has equal

access to public areas. Particularly, a litigant could not be denied

entry to a Court, wherein his cases are pending and he appearing as

party-in-person. But the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3

would disclose that the petitioner was not maintaining proper

decorum before the Court and was committing many irregularities.

The learned Principal District Judge, Khammam filed his counter

affidavit stating that in O.S.No.135 of 2015, the petitioner without

taking prior permission to prosecute his case, appeared in person. As

per the orders in I.A.No.9 of 2023 in I.A.No.485 of 2017 dated

01.03.2024, the suit agreement was sent to the District Registrar for

impounding, but intimation was received from the District Registrar

that inspite of notice to the parties, there was no response. The

petitioner, who was appearing as party-in-person in the said suit

contended that the document need not be impounded. While the

record disclosed that it was the petitioner himself, who filed I.A.No.485

SP, J & Dr.GRR, J wp_32875_2024

of 2017 under Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to refer the

document to a competent authority for impounding. In view of the

conduct of the petitioner, he submitted that the petitioner was

directed to engage a legal practitioner to prosecute the case, as he

represented that he was an agriculturist and was not in a position to

engage a counsel. It was informed to him that a legal aid counsel

would be provided from the District Legal Services Authority,

Khammam, but the writ petitioner confronted the Bench.

8. It was further stated that on another occasion, a complaint was

received against the petitioner on 16.10.2024 by Sri Beesha Ramesh,

advocate alleging that the petitioner, who was the defendant in

O.S.No.732 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Khammam gained illegal entry into the suit file records without

consent or permission of the presiding officer and forged the name in

the vakalatnama filed by the counsel for the plaintiffs with his own

handwriting. It was also submitted that on 09.08.2024, the petitioner

filed a complaint before the High Court against the II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, pursuant to which, the

High Court called for his remarks. Basing on the remarks submitted

by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate dated 17.09.2024, the

learned Principal District Judge, Khammam addressed proceedings

vide Dis.No.3607 dated 24.09.2024 to the High Court stating that the

SP, J & Dr.GRR, J wp_32875_2024

allegations made in the complaint were baseless and were made only

to obtain a favorable order in C.C.No.224 of 2015 by instilling fear in

the mind of the Presiding Officer (II Additional Judicial Magistrate),

where the petitioner contested as party-in-person. It was also

submitted that the petitioner was a habitual complainant making false

and baseless allegations against the Presiding Officers. The High

Court on administrative side permitted the Principal District Judge,

Khammam to initiate necessary action against the complainant (i.e.

the writ petitioner) for violation of the directions of the High Court and

for filing false complaint, as such the circular dated 05.11.2024 was

issued accordingly.

9. The Standing Counsel for the respondents placed the notification

No.16/SO/2018 published in the Telangana Weekly Gazette dated

21.06.2018 introduced by way of Amendment by incorporating

Chapter III-A after Chapter III of the rules on the appellate side with

regard to the norms for presentation and conduct of proceedings in

person by the parties. But, however, the learned counsel for the

petitioner contented that the same was applicable to the High Court,

but not to the Sub-Ordinate Courts, which contention appears to be

correct. But, however, considering the counter affidavit filed by

respondent No.3 and the Division Bench judgment of the Common

High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Suo

SP, J & Dr.GRR, J wp_32875_2024

motu C.C.No.684 of 2002 and W.P.No.15479 of 2001 (C.C.J.Papa Rao

v. Government of AP, I and CAD Department and others), wherein

in a similar case, it was observed that:

5. We have discussed the facts hereinabove while deciding petition for contempt. There are two aspects of the matter one is that the Judges need the assistance of trained Advocates in order to decide the controversy correctly, second aspect of the matter is preservation of the dignity of the Courts. If a party in person fails in both it would be a tragedy for the Courts as well as the litigant. May be a litigant loses his case only because he was not able to project the case correctly before the Court and may be because he is not aware as to what conduct is expected of him in a Court hall. He suffers contempt and the dignity of the court gets diminished by his conduct. Some time such a conduct can be voluntary and sometimes it can be innocent but the danger of getting the system of justice dilapidated is always there.

In our legal system Judges would have always the assistance of Advocates. Since we are dealing with an adversarial system of litigation therefore the importance of Advocates is much more. Secondly our system presumes that the Advocates are the officers of the Court and they will not necessarily tell the Courts only those things which go in favor of their clients but they will also let the Court know about the factors which would go against their clients. Advocates are not expected to only plead for their clients but as a matter of fact they are expected to assist the court in reaching to the correct conclusions. This may not be possible when a party in person appears. A party in person is not expected to argue against himself whereas this is expected from an Advocate who is supposed to assist the Court. For these reasons, the Advocates Act has recognized and accepted the importance of the Bar. Advocates as a matter of right can address the Courts whereas there is no such right available to the party in person. A person has a right to approach the Court but we believe that he has not a right for personal hearing. These matters are considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Hari Om Rajender Kumar v. Chief Rationing Officer. The matter even came up before the Supreme Court in Harishankar v. Girdhari. Though the Supreme Court was not considering in that case the rights of the party in person but it was considering the right of a party to appoint a non- Advocate for pleading his case. This was a case in which a particular person wanted his case to

SP, J & Dr.GRR, J wp_32875_2024

be pleaded by one of his friends who was not an Advocate. The Supreme Court stated, 'A pleader, by. definition, includes any person other than one authorized by law to practice in a court if he is appointed with the permission of the Court, to act in a particular proceeding. The Supreme Court's power may well be exercised in regulating audience before it in tune with the spirit of Section 2 (q) of the Criminal Procedure Code'? Then in para-4 the Supreme Court laid down;

'Having regard to this conspectus of considerations I hold that a private person who is not an advocate, has no right to barge into Court and claim to argue for a party. He must get the prior permission of the Court, for which the motion must come from the party himself. It is open to the Court to grant or withhold permission in its discretion. In fact, the court may, even after grant of permission, withdraw it half way through if the representative proves himself reprehensible. The antecedents, the relationship, the reasons for requisitioning the services of the private person and a variety of other circumstances must be gathered before grant or refusal of permission.

Going by this judgment, a party cannot without the leave of the Court, appoint a third person who is not an Advocate, as a pleader. We feel that the parameters laid down for a third party non-advocate to appear should also be applicable to parties in person if they are not trained Advocates. In the words of the Supreme Court an Advocate is, 'He is master of an expertise but more than that accountable to the Court and governed by a high ethic. The success of the judicial process often depends on the services of the legal profession. Therefore, we hold that, if a party in person wants to appear he must necessarily get leave of the Court and if the Court feels that he can assist the Court, and also maintain the decorum of the Court properly, leave may be granted, but, on the other hand if an unscrupulous litigant comes to the Court by filing a Writ Petition after paying a Court fee of Rs.100/- only with a motive of denigrating the Court, such a person should not be allowed to appear in person. On the other hand the Court should make an endeavor to see that a proper counsel is appointed on his behalf and if he is not in a position to pay the counsel there is Legal Services Authority to take care of him. We are also convinced by our experience as members of the Bar and as members of the Bench that

SP, J & Dr.GRR, J wp_32875_2024

whenever a request is made by Judges to any of the Advocate to appear for a party there are no instances of declining such a request, but the question still remains, what will happen if the party insists that he will appear in person and he will not accept an advocate appointed on his behalf by the Court. In such a situation, we feel, it will be lawful for the Court to refuse audience to the party in person and ask a suitable counsel to appear as amicus curiae.

10. Considering the allegations against the petitioner as stated by

the respondent No.3 in his counter affidavit and considering the rights

of the petitioner in prosecuting his matters as party-in-person before a

public Court, it is considered fit to direct respondent No.3 to permit

the petitioner to enter the Court premises as and when his presence is

required for trial or cross-examination and to ask a suitable counsel to

appear as amicus curiae on his behalf, if the petitioner is not willing to

accept an advocate appointed on his behalf by the Legal Services

Authority to take care of the proceedings before various Courts. The

access of the petitioner to the Sections and the Offices attached to the

Court can be restricted. The petitioner is also directed to maintain

decorum of the Court whenever his presence is mandated by the Court,