Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 151 (CAL)

Niranjan Maity v. State of West Bengal

2018-01-19

DARA SHEKO

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel, being assisted by Ms. Anandamayee Ghosh, learned Counsel representing the Petitioners. Heard also Ms. Chama Mukherjee, learned Counsel, being assisted by Ms. Paromita Pal, learned Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Mr. Bhattacharjee in the tune of the text of the writ petition ventilated the grievance of the writ petitioners that respondent Nos. 12 and 13, respectively being the concerned Block Development Officer and Block Land & Land Reforms Officer have been obstructing to work in the Office of the B.L.&L.R.O., Bhagwanpur, District – Purba Medinipur, although the writ petitioners are of the status of registered Law Clerks, and, those respondents have been declining to accept the mutation cases/misc. cases/conversion cases and other cases filed by them and it is complained of that by such declinment those respondents have been making them jobless for which they have been facing great problem in maintaining their livelihood. 3. With such allegation the writ petitioners, being the registered Law Clerks filed the writ petition seeking the Writ of Mandamus along with other reliefs as embodied in the prayer of the writ petition. 4. Ms. Mukherjee inviting attention to Section 2(e) “right to act” as defined in the West Bengal Law Clerks Act, 1997, per contra submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable not only in view of the text mentioned in paragraph 8 and paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition but also due to having no merit in the writ petition as because the writ petitioners are not entitled to act anything de hors the “right to act prescribed under the Law Clerks Act (Supra). 5. She further submitted that save and except making allegation, no positive instance has been cited to justify the grievance and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Perused also the affidavit-in-reply exercised by the writ petitioners, gist of which is in the same tune likewise the text of the writ petition that the respondent authority restrained the writ petitioners from functioning as Law Clerks despite several representations. 7. It is obvious that the Law Clerks, as a class, being registered to act under his/her Advocate, are governed equally to act under the Law Clerks Act, 1997 presumably under the control and supervision of the concerned Advocate. 7. It is obvious that the Law Clerks, as a class, being registered to act under his/her Advocate, are governed equally to act under the Law Clerks Act, 1997 presumably under the control and supervision of the concerned Advocate. Within the provision of Law Clerks Act, 1997 Section 2(e) also defined the terms “right to act” wherein as many as seven categories of ‘acts’ have been specified which the Law Clerks can perform to give assistance to the respective clients. Section 2 (e)(i) to (vii) of the Act is quoted below :- (i) to accept employment under an advocate to assist him in the work of his legal profession or to enter into an agreement with an Advocate for the purpose of assisting him in the work of his legal profession; (i) to present application signed by an advocate of the parties to a litigation for information, supply of form, return of document; (i) to take delivery of copies or information, and to tender money, on behalf of an advocate; (i) to identify persons swearing affidavits; (i) to take notes from the cause lists and books of information regarding dates of hearing, processes, process-fees due, and like matters; (i) to file before an officer of any court, tribunal or other authority or person legally authorised to take evidence, whether on oath or not, any document, material or thing required to be filed before such court, tribunal or other authority or person on behalf of a litigant, provided such document, material or thing is accompanied by a list of such document, material or thing and is signed by the advocate of the concerned party; (i) to do any other act which may be required by any rules made under any law for the time being in force or by any order issued by the State Government or the High Court.” 8. All those acts obviously are not supposed to be done under the supervision, knowledge and approval of the learned Advocate with whom the concerned Law Clerk is so attached. The Law Clerk is answerable to his learned Advocate for his acts since without fulfillment of Section 15(i) (c) or 15(3) (b) of the Act a Law Clerk is not entitled to get or possess licence to act. 9. The Law Clerk is answerable to his learned Advocate for his acts since without fulfillment of Section 15(i) (c) or 15(3) (b) of the Act a Law Clerk is not entitled to get or possess licence to act. 9. However, the relevant texts from one of such representations as appended to the writ petition as annexure ‘P-5’ is quoted hereunder :- “The B.L. & L.R.O. and his some staff of B.L. & L.R.O, Bhagwanpur-II, obstruct to work in the office of the B.L. & L.R.O. Bhagwanpur-II as Law Clerk. They are not willing to accept mutation cases / misc. cases / conversion cases and other cases filed by us. 10. That out livelihood depend on this work. That at present we are jobless and our family faced a great trouble. Under the above circumstances we request your kind honour kindly issue necessary instruction to the B.L. & L.R.O., Bhagwanpur-II so that we may continue our work as Law Clerk as usual and maintain our family.” 11. By the above texts the writ petitioners have ventilated about their grievance towards apprehension of becoming jobless due to ‘obstruction to work’ in the Office of the B.L. & L.R.O. But such representation is found not self-contained, or, even not appended with any positive instance under certification of their Lawyer as to whether any such alleged obstruction is subject to scrutiny as the act of the Authority de hors the rule. In the alternative the text of the allegation is noticed to be vague as it is without specifying as to whether the allegation ‘obstruct to work’ had come within either of Clause I, ii, vii of Section 2(e) of the Law Clerks Act, 1997. 12. Therefore, the writ petition suffers from vagueness and, therefore, the Writ Court does not find any reason to allow either of the prayers as sought for save and except indicating upon the respondent Authority particularly respondent Nos. 12 and 13 so that the registered Law Clerks like writ petitioners may not have any grievance to work as they are supposed to do as far as it would be practicable within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Law Clerks Act, 1997, as indicated above. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with direction upon Ms. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with direction upon Ms. Mukherjee to communicate server copy of this order to the respondents to act according to provision of law of Law Clerks Act 1997 accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.