Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 65 (GUJ)

Amrutlal Popatlal Parmar v. Ragistrar

2019-01-28

VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Vipul M. Pancholi, J. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed that the order passed by the Registrar refusing to grant permission to the petitioner to appear as party-in-person in Special Civil Application No.11795/2017 be set aside. 2. Heard Mr. Amrutlal Popatlal Parmar, who appears as party-in-person and learned advocate, Mr. Hemang M. Shah for the respondents. 3. The party-in-person submitted that the Registrar General of the respondent has issued certificate in Special Civil Application No.11795/2017 as per Rule 31-A of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, wherein it is stated that the petitioner herein is not competent to assist the Court in person and, hence, he is advised to engage an advocate of his choice or to approach the High Court Legal Services Committee for legal aid. It is submitted that the party-in-person is required to be permitted to submit his case even in Gujarati and, therefore, the certificate issued by the Registrar General be set aside. In support of his contention, the petitioner has placed reliance upon Section 32 of the Advocates Act, Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Order 3, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as well as the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.150/2018. Referring to the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.150/2018, the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has also been granted permission to file fresh petition and, therefore, the present petition is filed. 4. He has also placed reliance upon the order dated 22.03.2017 in Writ Petition (PIL) - Stamp No.47/2017 and submitted that the certificate impugned be set aside and thereby the petitioner be permitted to appear in person in Special Civil Application No.11795/2017. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mr. Shah appearing for the respondent has placed on record a copy of the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by this Court (Coram : N.V. Anjaria, J.) in Special Civil Application No.11795/2017 and submitted that by the said order, the petitioner was granted six weeks time to engage advocate. At this stage, learned advocate, Mr. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mr. Shah appearing for the respondent has placed on record a copy of the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by this Court (Coram : N.V. Anjaria, J.) in Special Civil Application No.11795/2017 and submitted that by the said order, the petitioner was granted six weeks time to engage advocate. At this stage, learned advocate, Mr. Shah has also produced on record a copy of the order dated 23.11.2018 passed by this Court (Coram : S.H. Vora, J.) in Special Civil Application No.11795/2017, whereby this Court has directed the Registrar to list the said petition after the petitioner obtains appropriate certificate as per Rule 31-A of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 or in lieu, to represent the case, engage an advocate of his choice or from the High Court Legal Services Committee. 6. Learned advocate, Mr. Shah has also placed on record a copy of the order dated 08.07.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Reference No.4/2015 and submitted that appropriate directions have been given in Para No.24 of the said order. 7. Learned advocate, Mr. Shah thereafter submitted that the Division Bench while passing an order in Letters Patent Appeal No.152/2018 directed the present petitioner to file fresh petition making proper pleadings and seeking appropriate relief, however, the said petition was different and not Special Civil Application No.11795/2017 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot place reliance upon the said order. 8. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by party-in-person and learned advocate for the respondent and also gone through the material placed on record and various orders passed by this Court, copies of which are placed on record. 9. It is required to be noted that on 31.08.2018, this Court in Special Civil Application No.11795/2017 has passed following order, "This petition comes up today along with office submission dated 01.08.2018, which reads as under, "In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that, Mr.A.P.Parmar has filed aforesaid R/SCA No.11795/2017 as Party- in-Person. After examining the Party-in- Person the Scrutiny Committee is of the view that Party-in-Person i.e. Mr.A.P.Parmar is not competent to assist the Honourable Court in person and he is advised to engage advocate of his choice or to approach High Court Legal Services Committee for Legal Aid, if he is entitled and Registry has informed the same to him (flag"A"). After examining the Party-in- Person the Scrutiny Committee is of the view that Party-in-Person i.e. Mr.A.P.Parmar is not competent to assist the Honourable Court in person and he is advised to engage advocate of his choice or to approach High Court Legal Services Committee for Legal Aid, if he is entitled and Registry has informed the same to him (flag"A"). In this connection, it is further respectfully submitted that, Mr.A.P.Parmar has neither filed appearance of his advocate nor through High Court Legal Services Committee in the aforesaid matter till date. Therefore, the aforesaid matter is placed before the Honourable Court for passing necessary orders." 2. It is directed that office shall once again intimate the Party-in-Person about the requirement that he has to engage an advocate having been not competent to assist and conduct the matter before the Court and that he has to engage an advocate only through whom he can appear in the matter. The Party- in-Person may be given six weeks time to engage the advocate and do the necessary." 10. Thereafter in the very same matter, on 23.11.2018, following order is passed by this Court, "The Registry is directed to list present proceedings after party-in-person obtains appropriate certificate as per Rule 31-A of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 or in lieu, to represent the case, engage an advocate of his choice or from High Court Legal Services Committee." 11. The Division Bench of this Court in Para No.24 in Criminal Reference No.4/2015 has observed as under:- "24. In our view, even when the party-in-person is certified as not competent to assist the Court, but if the concerned Court before whom the concerned litigant wants to move the matter permits such litigant to appear as party-in-person, in the matters other than as that of the temporary bail, parole, furlough and habeas corpus, and if the party-in-person is other than advocate having registration with the bar council, the concerned Court may in a given case find that the party-in-person may given his written arguments in English, but he may not be allowed to present his case orally in the language other than English unless the competence is so certified by the committee under Rule 31A of the Rules. It is a different matter if the Court before whom the concerned litigant wants to move the matter may permit such litigant to make written submissions in the language other than English, i.e., in Gujarati, if the learned Judge or the Hon'ble Judges on the Bench find it appropriate to permit such written submissions in Gujarati. In any case, such a course may be permitted by the Court provided other side, either advocate or other party to the proceedings do not object to such a course being adopted. If any objection is raised, it would be required for the said party-in-person to submit written submissions in English only. In any case, all such parties who are desirous to use the language of Gujarati in the pleadings or the petitions or the applications submitted to the Court may be permitted to make written submissions, but not the oral submissions for presentation of the case unless the certificate of competence is issued by the committee under Rule 31A of the Rules." 12. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.150/2018 and contended that the Division Bench while dismissing the Appeal, granted liberty to file fresh petition and, therefore, the present petition is filed. However, it is required to be noted that the subject matter before the Division Bench in said LPA was different and not with regard competency certificate issued by the respondent in Special Civil Application No.11795/2017. The said Letters Patent Appeal No.150/2018 was directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 12.12.2017 in Special Civil Application No.20331/2017 and, therefore while dismissing the Appeal, if the liberty is granted to the petitioner to file fresh petition, the said observations would not render any assistance to the petitioner in the present case. 13. It is required to be noted that when this Court has passed two orders on 31.08.2018 and 23.11.2018 in Special Civil Application No.11795/2017, the petitioner has not challenged those orders before the higher forum and, hence, the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 14. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Notice is discharged.