Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1398 (CAL)

Md. Mustafa Kamal v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-12-03

J.K.BISWAS

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioners in this Article 226 petition dated 20th August (sic) 2010 are seeking the following principal relief: "a) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents, their Officers, agents, Sub-ordinates to forbear from giving any effect and/ or further effect to the Panel of Lawyer of the State, as mentioned in letter dated 7.7.2010, which is made Annexure "P-1" to this application and further directing them to cancel the said panel so prepared, forthwith;" 2. THE petitioners and their colleagues submitted a representation dated July 22, 2010 to the Secretary, Judicial Department and the Sub- divisional Officer, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur praying for "cancellation of the Panel Prepared for the appointment of Panel Pleaders (Senior and Junior) in Civil and Criminal Courts at Islampur, Distt. Uttar Dinajpur (W.B.)." Mr. Goswami, Counsel for the petitioners, submits as follows. The panel has been prepared in violation of the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. No advertisement was put anywhere inviting application from the willing Advocates. Advocates for representing the Government of West Bengal have been picked and chosen. The petitioners have been denied equal opportunity to participate in the selection process. 3. MR. Dhar, Counsel for the State, has submitted as follows. The petition is not maintainable. There is no question of violation of the provisions of Section 24 that had no manner of application to the process of preparation of the panel in question. The State Government as a litigant decided to choose Advocates for conducting cases on its behalf. No statutory provision obliged the State Government to follow any particular selection process. 4. ADVOCATES chosen by the State Government for conducting cases on its behalf have not been appointed to any post. They are not ADVOCATES who are selected and appointed in terms of the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They have been chosen without any assurance that they would be engaged by the State Government. An Advocate named in the panel is to receive professional fees as an Advocate ordinarily entitled to receive fee from his client. As a matter of fact here the client has at once chosen a number of Advocates for conducting its cases. They have been chosen without any assurance that they would be engaged by the State Government. An Advocate named in the panel is to receive professional fees as an Advocate ordinarily entitled to receive fee from his client. As a matter of fact here the client has at once chosen a number of Advocates for conducting its cases. The Government is free to engage any one of them in any case and also to discontinue to engage one whose name has been mentioned in the panel. 5. I am, therefore, unable to see how in the process the Government was required to put advertisement inviting application and select the best ones. It is wrong to say that the petitioners were denied equal opportunity to participate in the process. No statutory provision obliged the State Government to initiate any process. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 6. FOR these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs.