Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 279 (KER)

Prathap P. v. State of Kerala

2019-03-21

SHAJI P.CHALY

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the Secretary of the Kerala Advocate Clerks' Association attached to the Thrissur District Court, seeking the following reliefs: “1. Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature thereof restraining Respondent No.3 from evicting the petitioner and/or the Thrissur District Unit of the Kerala Advocate Clerks' Association from the 1150 Sq. ft. space (Room No.33) occupied by it in the Thrissur Collectorate building; and 2. Issue such other writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 3. There are 400 members in the Clerks' Association attached to the Thrissur District Court and they were functioning in a room ad-measuring about 1150 Sq.ft. in the Collectorate building. The said facility was hardly sufficient and woefully inadequate to cater to the needs of the members of the Association. A new Court Complex was constructed 100 metres away to accommodate all the Courts functioning in various rented buildings in Thrissur city. Taking into account the large number of members of the Association, a space of about 4500 sq.ft. is necessary for the smooth and effective functioning of its members. The subject matter of allotting space to the Clerks' Association was in contemplation, however, feeling that it is at stake, the Association has approached this Court. In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment in W.P.(C) No.39583 of 2015 dated 23.12.2015, 1500 sq.ft. area was allotted to the Association in the new Court Complex. According to the petitioner, now, only 2650 sq.ft. area is available to the members of the Association to function, i.e., 1500 sq.ft. in the new Complex and 1150 sq.ft. in the Collectorate building. However, to the utter dismay of the members of the Association, they are asked to vacate the old rooms in the Collectorate building. 4. The case projected by the petitioner is that, though several courts were shifted to the new Court Complex, certain courts are still working in the Collectorate building. Considering the number of members of the Association, a minimum area of 4500 sq.ft. is required for the smooth and effective functioning of its members. 4. The case projected by the petitioner is that, though several courts were shifted to the new Court Complex, certain courts are still working in the Collectorate building. Considering the number of members of the Association, a minimum area of 4500 sq.ft. is required for the smooth and effective functioning of its members. Therefore, if the Association is compelled to vacate the premises in the old Collectorate building, it will cause serious prejudice and irreparable injury to the members, which also would affect the functioning of the advocates from the Court Complex as well as the functioning of the judiciary itself, since there is an intrinsic relationship by and between the works carried out by the Advocate Clerks and effective functioning of the courts. 5. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent, refuting the claims raised by the petitioner. Certain facts are admitted, i.e., space allotted in the new Court Complex and the area occupied by the Clerks' Association in the old Collectorate building etc. Among other contentions, it is stated that, most of the Courts in the Collectorate building, i.e., 16 Nos., were shifted to the new Court Complex and the vacated rooms were allotted to 24 Government Offices. More than 60 applications have been received from various offices, requesting for rooms at Civil Station building, which are pending for allotment. The said Government offices do not even have own building, and most of them are paying huge rent for the building, which causes substantial loss to the Government. That apart, some of the offices are functioning in old, damaged and hazardous buildings, which make the life of the employees and common man at great risk, and many of those offices are to function in the District Headquarters itself for efficient working of the Government. 6. That apart, it is submitted that, the area now allotted to the Advocate Clerks' Association is more than that the Association is now occupying in the Civil Station building, and as per the PWD norms, which defines the standard area for various offices in the Court Complex, the standard area for Advocate Clerks' Association attached to the District Court Complex is only 1000 sq.ft. So also, the contention with respect to courts functioning in the Collectorate building even after shifting of the Courts to the new Court Complex is denied, and further submitted that previously the Family Court, Industrial Tribunal etc. were functioning in a building situated outside the Collectorate area and the Advocate Clerks used to go to the Family Court and other Courts, from the rooms allotted to them in the Civil Station building when the District Court and other Courts are functioning in the Civil Station building. Therefore, according to the 3rd respondent, the action taken by the 3rd respondent to recover the rooms from the Clerks' Association is in accordance with law and fully justified. 7. The 2nd respondent, i.e., the High Court of Kerala has also filed a detailed counter affidavit, basically supporting the contentions advanced by the petitioner. That apart, it is pointed out that, in the New Court Complex or in the Court Complex Annexe, no further space is available to be provided to the Advocate Clerks working in that Court centre, and they may require an additional space apart from 1200 sq.ft. area now occupied by them in the Court Complex Annexe. Since several Courts continue to function in the Collectorate Building itself and considering the probability of accommodating the proposed Special Courts in the Collectorate Building, it may be convenient for the Advocate Clerks, if they are permitted to continue their occupation of 1150 sq.ft. area in the Collectorate Building. 8. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. 9. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 10. The basic facts and materials projected by the petitioner are not under dispute. The dispute raised by the 3rd respondent is that, in the area occupied by the Association now in the Collectorate/Civil Station building, other Government Offices are to be accommodated, and therefore, the Clerks' Association has to vacate the premises. The contention put forth by the petitioner that there are 400 clerks functioning in the Thrissur District Court Complex is not disputed. The basic submission advanced by learned Government Pleader in that regard is that, normally in all the Civil Station building, only 1000 sq.ft. is allotted to the Advocate Clerks. The contention put forth by the petitioner that there are 400 clerks functioning in the Thrissur District Court Complex is not disputed. The basic submission advanced by learned Government Pleader in that regard is that, normally in all the Civil Station building, only 1000 sq.ft. is allotted to the Advocate Clerks. Such rough estimates and calculations are baseless and unfounded, and grossly disproportionate to the actual requirements in accordance with the facts and figures in existence. It is an admitted fact that, the number of courts and the number of litigations have gone up in several multitudes, compared to 10 or 15 years back. The number of clerks have also gone up, in proportion with the litigations and the increase in Courts/Tribunals and other judicial and quasi-judicial functionaries compared to yesteryears. 11. Moreover, the Advocate Clerks are integral and indispensable part of the judicial system. In order to carry out day-to-day works of the courts, Advocate Clerks are part and parcel of the legal frame-work. Unlike advocates, the advocate clerks will have to function from the court premises itself, in order to avoid delay in filing, curing the defects and resubmitting the litigations before the offices of various Courts. If such works are to be undertaken by the Advocate Clerks going back to the Advocates' offices, there is every likelihood of delay, interfering with the fair administration of justice. 12. So much so, the Clerks will have to go through the posting diaries and take down the proceedings in order to enable the advocates to appear in courts without fail, when the cases are posted. That apart, advocate clerks are an organized sector, controlled and regulated by the Pleader's Clerks Rules, 1959, framed by the High Court of Kerala under Sec.6 of the Indian Legal Practitioners Act, which enables advocates to present plaints, petitions etc. through their registered clerks and no person who has any defect of character or is convicted of any offence shall be allowed to be registered as a clerk. Furthermore, advocate clerks in the lower judiciary is regulated and controlled by the District Judge by maintaining appropriate registers, and the registration is to be renewed periodically, and District Judge is empowered to remove the clerks from the register in any specified circumstances. 13. Furthermore, advocate clerks in the lower judiciary is regulated and controlled by the District Judge by maintaining appropriate registers, and the registration is to be renewed periodically, and District Judge is empowered to remove the clerks from the register in any specified circumstances. 13. Thereafter, Advocates' Clerks Rules, 2016 is introduced, applicable to the clerks throughout the State including the clerks functioning from the High Court, with typical regulatory methods as that of the Pleader's Clerks Rules, 1959. So also, the Kerala Advocates' Clerks Welfare Fund Act, 2003, is introduced to provide for the constitution of a welfare fund for the benefit of clerks and to provide payment of retirement and other benefits. Several rules are also constituted under Act, 2003. All these aspects make it clear that, the clerks play a vital role in justice delivery system, and the functioning of the judiciary is largely dependent upon the integrated and coordinated activities of the clerks. Moreover, on a humanitarian angle also, requisite space should be provided to the members of the Clerks' Association to carry out their activities by occupying a table and seat, and therefore, viewed in that manner, the space occupied by them now is not sufficient enough for carrying on their activities efficiently and in a systematic and disciplined manner. 14. It is also pertinent to note that, the 3rd respondent is over-enthusiastic in accommodating the Government Offices, in the Civil Station Complex, when substantial number of works handled by the courts are against the Government, its instrumentalities and its Departments. After appreciating the rival submissions and taking into account the practical and legal circumstances pointed out above, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition. 13. Therefore, the writ petition will stand allowed, and there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent or any other officers functioning under him, not to evict the Advocate Clerks' Association from the premises occupied by them in the old Collectorate building.