Rajeshwari vs Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and Others

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—This is an extremely unfortunate case. Petitioner appears to be a wealthy person who is in a habit of changing the Counsel. Before Board of Revenue, Lucknow Revision No. 979 (LR)/2012-13 District Kanpur Nagar is pending in which Uttam Kumar and petitioner Rajeshwari are applicants. The opposite parties are Deputy Collector, Kanpur Vikas Pradhikaran, Kanpur and State of U.P. Sri J.N. Chamber, Judicial Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow passed an order on 29.5.2013 in the said revision stating that the revisionists had engaged two Counsel; initially Sri Santosh Tripathi was engaged and afterwards Sri Satish Tyagi was engaged and in the Court both of them quarrelled with each other and used unparliamentary language and created a scene resulting in chaos and disturbance in the Court working. Thereupon, the learned Member requested the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Lucknow to transfer the case. The Chairman accordingly transferred the case through order dated 31.5.2013 which has been challenged through this writ petition. The Courts are trained to decide the dispute between the learned Counsel appearing for rival parties but not between two learned Counsel appearing for the same party.

There is no error in the impugned order.

It is further directed these two learned Counsel i.e., Sri Santosh Tripathi and Sri Satish Tyagi shall not be permitted to appear in any case before the Board of Revenue, Lucknow. They have not maintained high standards and dignity of the profession.

Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who shall send the same to the Chairman of the Board of Revenue, Lucknow immediately and the Chairman shall intimate the learned Additional C.S.C. within two or three days from receipt of the copy regarding compliance of this order.

Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

In the end learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri V.K. Pandey prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as not pressed. Prayer is rejected. Learned Counsel further stated that the observation made in this order against both the above learned advocates and the Board of Revenue may prejudice the Bar against him. In this regard, it is clarified that learned Counsel did not say a single word against any of the aforesaid advocates. Above order has been passed only and only on the basis of the observations made by the learned Member in his order.