Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 244 (ORI)

Kailash Chandra Sahu v. State of Orissa

2018-03-12

BISWANATH RATH

body2018
ORDER Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for opposite party nos.1 and 2-State. 2. From the order-sheet, it appears that even though the writ petition was filed in the year 2004, but no notice has been issued to the private opposite party nos.3 and 4 as of now. The matter was listed lastly on 09.06.2004 and deferred with the only direction to the State counsel to take instruction involving the impugned order and also with an order of no distribution of the disputed land without leave of the Court. In the meantime, opposite party no.2 even though already filed a counter in response to the above direction since 06.10.2005 and a copy of which even though has been received by Shri Ajay Kumar Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner since 06.10.2005, there is no attempt to request the Court to issue notice to the private opposite parties. In the meantime, fourteen years have passed. Even assuming, there was any error in the impugned order for being obtained behind the back of the petitioner or for not providing any scope to the petitioner, this Court observes, instead of rushing to this Court, nothing prevented the petitioner to file a review petition bringing forth the facts supporting him before the same authority at the relevant point of time, but however, immediately after coming to know of the impugned order. This Court observes that Shri Ajay Kumar Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner went on avoiding to answer the queries made by this Court and remained busy in overpowering the Court by not only raising high voice but also raising unnecessary and uncalled-for remarks against the Court. Considering that the petitioner was not a party in the proceeding in the authority below and new facts have been brought to the notice of this Court for the first time, as a decision on the new facts required to be taken by the original authority itself and that too involving the party likely to be affected, this Court though not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage, but however, permits the petitioner to move a review petition to the Revenue Officer-cum-Additional Tahasildar within three weeks hence bringing his case and the grounds raised hereinabove for consideration of the Additional Tahasildar. In such event, the Additional Tahasildar shall do well in considering the matter after giving opportunity to the parties likely to be affected and passing necessary order within four months from the date of appearance of opposite party nos.3 and 4 herein. This Court also observes that the effect of the impugned order at Annexure-5 shall be dependant on the decision involving the review petition. Till such a decision is taken, there shall be no effect to the order at Annexure-5. 3. For the unruly behaviour of Shri Ajay Kumar Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court observes that even after a cool hearing of this matter and passing of the order, Shri Ajay Kumar Nanda, learned counsel went on making his submissions and comments in high peach, thereby obstructing the further proceeding of the Court deliberately. Shri Ajay Kumar Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at this stage of the matter not only went on making unnecessary allegations against the Court but also obstructed the Court proceeding by continuing his submissions not connected to the case for over fifteen minutes. All attempts of the Court to bring him to normalcy failed compelling the Court sit mom and to rise to Chamber. It is here, this Court observes that though there is no codified norm dealing with the behaviour or role of a lawyer in the Court room, but so far as High Court practice is concerned, minimum courtesy desires, a lawyer while advancing his case should not only be submissive but also to cooperate the Courts in answering to the queries made by the Court to clear the doubts. Shri Ajay Kumar Nanda, learned counsel appears to have crossed all limits. A lawyer not only has a duty to the Court, but also a duty to pay respect to the Court, at the same time a lawyer has also a duty to maintain dignity as well as decorum of the Court. The manner Shri Ajay Kumar Nanda, learned counsel made his submission and in the voice and the tone taking the Court to the level of daily market remained unknown to the Court practices. Such behaviour is never expected from a counsel who is always treated as an Officer of the Court also. The manner Shri Ajay Kumar Nanda, learned counsel made his submission and in the voice and the tone taking the Court to the level of daily market remained unknown to the Court practices. Such behaviour is never expected from a counsel who is always treated as an Officer of the Court also. Action of Shri Ajay Kumar Nanda, learned counsel in a complete packed Court left a bad signal to the youngster watching the Court proceeding, lowering the dignity of the Court in the mind of the litigants present in the Court and his behaviour disturbing the mind of the other counsels waiting for their cases to be taken up, this is a conduct of a lawyer wholly disturbing the Court atmosphere. Unless such behaviour is curbed outright it will lead a situation bezare and the sanctity of the Court room will be destroyed. No doubt, there is freedom to a lawyer to have his own way of submission at the same time, it does not mean a lawyer will attempt to make the Court room that of a daily market (Hata). The way Shri Ajay Kumar Nanda, learned counsel made his submission, is an attempt to destroy the minimum norms of practice in a Court room. It is high time for the Bar Council of India as well as the State Bar Council to look into such matters and bring concrete measures to avoid such unpleasant situation in Court rooms in future. 4. It is here, this Court takes note of two paragraphs from a decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of D.P. Chadha vrs. Triyugi Narain Mishra and others, reported in AIR 2001 S.C. 457 . Paragraphs-21 and 23 of the aforesaid judgment reads as hereunder :- The term misconduct has not been defined in the Act. However, it is an expression with a sufficiently wide meaning. In view of the prime position which the advocates occupy in the process of administration of justice and justice delivery system, the Courts justifiably expect from the lawyers a high standard of professional and moral obligation in the discharge of their duties. Any act or omission on the part of a lawyer which interrupts or misdirects the sacred flow of justice or which renders a professional unworthy of right to exercise the privilege of the profession would amount to misconduct attracting the wrath of disciplinary jurisdiction. Any act or omission on the part of a lawyer which interrupts or misdirects the sacred flow of justice or which renders a professional unworthy of right to exercise the privilege of the profession would amount to misconduct attracting the wrath of disciplinary jurisdiction. In the Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar, (1976) 2 SCC 291 : ( AIR 1976 SC 242 ), Krishna Iyer, J. said that the vital role of the lawyer depends upon his probity and professional lifestyle. The central function of the legal profession is to promote the administration of justice. As monopoly to legal profession has been statutorily granted by the nation, it obligates the lawyer to observe scrupulously those norms which make him worthy of confidence of community in him as a vehicle of justice social justice. The Bar cannot behave with doubtful scruples or strive to thrive on litigation. Canons of conduct cannot be crystallized into rigid rules but felt by the collective conscience of the practititioners as right. Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise. Foreseeing the role which the legal profession has to play in shaping the society and building the nation, Krishna Iyer, J. goes on to say (Para 25 of AIR)- For the practice of Law with expanding activist horizons, professional ethics cannot be contained in a Bar Council rule nor in traditional cant in the books but in new canons of conscience which will command the members of the calling of justice to obey rules of morality and utility, clear in the crystallized case-law and concrete when tested on the qualms of high norms simple enough in given situations, though involved when expressed in a single sentence. 23. In George Frier Grahame v. Attorney-General, Fiji, AIR 1936 PC 224 the Privy Council has approved the following definition of professional misconduct given by Darling J. in Re A Solicitor ex parte the Law Society, (1912) 1 KB 302 If it is shown that an Advocate in the pursuit of his profession has done something with regard to it which would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by his professional brethren of good repute and competency, then it is open to say that he is guilty of professional misconduct. 5. 5. For the observations and following the ruling as well as the observations of the Honble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, this Court for the unruly behaviour of Shri Ajay Kumar Nanda, learned counsel though finds, the action of Shri Ajay Kumar Nanda amounting to contempt of Court, but however, to afford one more chance to Shri Ajay Kumar Nanda, learned counsel to bring correction in his attitude in attending the Courts, this Court imposes a cost of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand) which amount shall be deposited by Shri Ajay Kumar Nanda, learned counsel in the High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund within fifteen days hence. 6. The writ petition thus stand disposed of with the observation and directions made hereinabove. Petition disposed of.