Upset over a petitioner’s conduct of approaching his lawyer in a PIL instead of the amicus curiae, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court (HC) directed its registry to remove the petitioner’s name from the case, reports Vaibhav Ganjapure.
The move came while hearing a plea filed by CH Sharma and others, highlighting lack of facilities at the Government Medical Colleges and Hospitals (GMCHs) across Vidarbha.
The bench was enraged over the fact that lawyer Prateek Sharma filed vakalatnama on behalf of the first petitioner in individual capacity when others are also named in the case. The HC questioned petitioner’s move to rope in a lawyer without approaching amicus curiae Anup Gilda, who was appointed by the HC to plead the case.
“Why only CH Sharma should decide to chart a course, which is independent of the remaining petitioners and when this petition is in the nature of PIL. The case was jointly filed by the petitioners and amicus curiae has already been appointed for rendering comprehensive assistance,” a division bench comprising justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Kilor said.
Reprimanding the petitioner’s counsel, the judges said they didn’t understand why he had accepted to plead the case when he had represented some intervention applicants in the past. Quoting Gilda, they pointed out that in 2016, when justice Bhushan Gavai was presiding over the bench, the HC had orally advised Prateek Sharma to have consultation and coordination with the amicus, if at all he has to make any submission in the matter.
“As regards the filling of vakalatnama as well as pursis and making submissions, we don’t find that there was any such prior consultation and coordination with the amicus by the counsel. We find that the petitioner’s conduct may not be conducive to PIL and therefore, it is necessary that he’s prohibited from being party to this case.”
The justices added that in PILs, the petitioners must join hands and shouldn’t do anything by going against the public interest. “It would be in the interest of justice that CH Sharma no longer remains as a party to this PIL.
Therefore, we direct that he be deleted as petitioner forthwith and amendment be carried out,” the bench said before adjourning the hearing till June 30.
SOURCE ; /timesofindia.i
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure.
0 Comments