AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon'Ble Siddharth Nandan, J.
Heard Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.C. Dwivedi, who had initially appeared on behalf of respondent no. 6, and Sri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6 through Review Application No. 106 of 2026 in the aforesaid writ petition. This Court by order dated 05.05.2026 had disposed of the writ petition being Writ-C No.17384 of 2026, with the following directions:-
“(i)The Respondent No.2- Director of Education, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad/Prayagraj, is directed to ensure that the D.I.O.S. District- Azamgarh, proceeds to hold the elections of Nehru Vidyapeeth Intermediate College, Reotipur, Ghazipur, within a period of two months from the date of service of a certified copy of this order.
(ii)In case required, it shall be open for the D.I.O.S., Azamgarh to seek the help of Administration and on such a request, the State Administration shall be obliged to provide necessary police protection etc., for the purposes of holding the elections.
(iii)Since, both the parties have agreed to the electoral college, which was undisputed, at the time of the election, said to have been held in the year 2009; the D.I.O.S., Azamgarh, may take the said list into consideration, while determining the electoral list; and proceed to hold the elections, as per the Scheme of Administration, of the Institution in question.
(iv). The elections shall be held within the premises of "Rajkiya City Inter College, Ghazipur", as agreed between the parties, and to which the learned Standing Counsel has no objection.
(v)The order dated 10.04.2026, stands modified, to the extent of the directions, given herein above.”
However, subsequently a Review Application has been filed on behalf of one Shri Shiv Shankar Singh, who was arrayed as respondent No. 6 in the aforesaid writ petition. The applicant alleged himself to be the elected Manager of the Committee of Management and disputes that the petitioner no. 2, not being a member of the General Body, had filed the present writ petition, with ulterior motive; and also tried to change the name of the Society and convert the same into a Trust. Apart from the other averments on affidavit, what was surprising to note is that the deponent states on oath that he had not given any power/Vakalatnama to any counsel to appear on his behalf in Writ Petition No. 17384 of 2026, and furthermore, that he never filed or gave instructions to anyone to file the Caveat Application on his behalf.
It appears that the applicant had earlier filed Special Appeal No. 691 of 2026 against the judgment dated 05.05.2026 (Shiv Shankar Singh Vs. Committee of Management, Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College and 6 others) and the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 27.05.2026, leaving it open to the appellant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law; and thereafter the present Review Application has been filed.
The matter being taken up on 06.07.2026 and having heard the Advocates appearing, the Court had again examined the assertions with respect to the alleged election held in the year 2009, which was stated by Shri S.C. Dwivedi appearing on behalf of petitioner and Shri R.C. Dwivedi appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6, to be undisputed.
In the review application vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of Shiv Shankar Singh, who has been arrayed as respondent no. 6 in the aforesaid writ petition; but at the bottom an endorsement has been made to the effect that "No Counsel for respondent no. 6".
Interestingly, a Vakalatnama was also filed along with the Caveat Application, which was filed by Sri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate, in which there is a signature of Sri Shiv Shankar Singh and the same has been verified by Sri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate. However, the stand of Sri R.C. Dwivedi before this Court was that the signature on the Vakalatnama filed with the Caveat Application is not his; but has been made by his clerk, namely, Sri Rajesh Yadav. However, he does not dispute his signature on the Caveat Application. Sri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate, has filed his personal affidavit, wherein in paragraph-18, he has stated that Sri Shiv Shankar Singh, along with his nephew Sri Bhola Yadav, came to Allahabad and approached his office and handed over a copy of the order dated 10.04.2026, passed by the Joint Director of Education, along with duly signed Vakalatnama of Sri Shiv Shankar Singh, to his clerk, Sri Rajesh Yadav.
He has further submitted that Bhola Yadav, in the presence of Shiv Shankar Yadav, also deposited Rs.2,500/- with Rajesh Yadav, the clerk of the deponent; and thereafter the Caveat Application on behalf of Shiv Shankar Yadav was filed on 17.04.2026. For ready reference, para-18 and 19 of the affidavit dated 04.07.2026, is reproduced below :-
“18.That after passing of the order dated 10.04.2026, Sri Shiv Shankar Yadav along with his nephew Sri Bhola Yadav came to Allahabad and approached the office of the deponent and handed over a copy of the order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the Joint Director of Education and a duly signed Vakalatnama of Shiv Shankar Yadav to the clerk of the deponent, namely, Sri Rajesh Yadav. It is further stated that Sri Bhola Yadav, in the presence of Sri Shiv Shankar Yadav, had also paid a sum of Rs. 2,500/- to Sri Rajesh Yadav, Clerk of the deponent.
19.That thereafter, a Caveat Application was filed on behalf of Sri Shiv12484 Shankar Yadav on 17.04.2026 against the order dated 10.04.2026.”
Before proceeding further, I may note that Sri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate is practicing before this Court for the last more than thirty years and has an impeachable reputation; and he has also come forward by way of filing his personal affidavit, narrating the true facts which also indicates towards the general practice in the chambers of the Advocates, that is the clients often hand over the Vakalatnama to the clerks of the Advocates along with a nominal fee, in case an application is to be filed. It may also be noted that a caveat application is accepted by the Registry, without any supporting affidavit and as such, though this Court does not approve the practice but is constrained to note that at most of the time, the caveat applications are prepared in the chambers of the Advocates and signatures appended by the concerned Advocate on the application without a much a do. It is also a general practice that in case a client of an Advocate, is engaging his services over a period of time, the signatures are also verified by the Advocates themselves.
Sri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate has brought on record the details of number of writ petitions wherein, he has represented the same client, namely, Sri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) and has specifically stated that the averments made in the review application are absolutely false and warrants an inquiry.
From the perusal of the affidavit, it is apparent that Sri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) has engaged the services of Sri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate on previous occasions and has been his client since 2015; therefore, this Court is also to examine the conduct of the applicant before this Court, as it has a direct repercussion on the administration of justice, since Bar and Bench being two wheels of the same chariot, works on a mutual trust.
The second issue which this Court is required to examine is that, a statement was also made by Sri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners that the last undisputed election took place in the year 2009 and as to whether there was any concealment on his part. However, before proceeding to examine the conduct of Sri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate, the stand of the then counsel for respondent No. 6, Sri R.C. Dwivedi, may be dealt with.
Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate submits that Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) was continuing since 1973 as a Manager, which has also not been disputed by Shri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant in the Review Application; however from the perusal of the record in Writ-C No. 19276 of 2016 (Committee of Management, Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College, Rewatipur and others), it is to be found that the dispute between the parties as regards holding of the election of the year 2009 by Smt. Malti Rai, the then District Inspector of Schools, was writ large, and was under serious cloud, wherein order dated 16.04.2016, was under challenge.
It also appears that the said writ petition was eventually dismissed as infructuous on 18.03.2023; and in view of the aforesaid the submission of Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate as well as the stand taken by Shri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate also does not inspire confidence.
From the aforesaid, it is evident that the order of the Joint Director of Education dated 16.04.2016, holding from the evidence on record that, the election which was conducted by the Authorized Controller in the year 2009, was doubtful; and which orders had become final; and now fresh elections were to be held.
This Court finds that the aforesaid order was part of the record, however, even then the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri S.C. Dwivedi, had given an impression, at the time of passing of the order dated 05.05.2026, that the last undisputed election was of the year 2009; and hence had misguided this Court. Therefore, this Court finds that the statement of the petitioner’s counsel, Shri S.C. Dwivedi and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6, Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate, were adverse to the documents on record.
Shri R.C. Dwivedi filed his personal affidavit dated 04.07.2026, in which he had submitted that admittedly Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) engaged his services for filing Special Appeal No. 514 of 2015 against an order passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38153 of 2015, and since then Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) had continuously engaged the deponent as his counsel, right up to the year 2026. He further submits that Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) also engaged his services in Special Appeal No. 350 of 2018, challenging the order of learned Single Judge dated 22.09.2018; which has also not been denied. Subsequently, Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) had also filed a caveat application against an order dated 02.02.2019, by which the claim of Shri Avdhesh Rai (petitioner) was rejected and thereafter Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13896 of 2019, was also filed. The Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13896 of 2019 was connected with the earlier Writ Petition No. 19276 of 2016 and both the writ petitions were decided by a common judgment and order dated 18.03.2023. He has submitted that Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) is the maternal uncle of Shri Bhola Singh, who served as Head Clerk in the Institution in question and they had always come together to his chamber.
In the year 2023, by way of concealment, the said Shri Avdhesh Rai had set up a forged election and filed a writ petition before this Court seeking a direction against the District Inspector of Schools, to consider recognition of the election set up by him. In the said writ petition, Shri Bhola Yadav filed an impleadment application, which came to be dismissed in the year 2024.
Subsequently, Shri Avdhesh Rai obtained an order dated 01.11.2025 and against which Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) filed his objection and thereafter vide order dated 09.12.2025, the earlier order dated 01.11.2025 passed in favour of Shri Avdhesh Rai, was stayed; and against the order dated 09.12.2025, Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) once again filed a caveat application through the deponent, as his counsel; and the caveat was reported in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 312 of 2026.
Thereafter, Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) came to Allahabad along with Shri Bhola Yadav on 24.01.2026, and even got his photograph done from the Photo Identification Centre of the High Court Bar Association, on the Advocate Roll No. A/R-0992 of 2012 of Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate and the said Writ Petition No. 312 of 2026, was finally disposed of vide order dated 25.02.2026. Thereafter, the Joint Director of Education vide order dated 10.04.2026 recalled his earlier order dated 01.11.2025 and directed the District Inspector of Schools to hold a fresh elections; and again Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) along with his nephew Shri Bhola Yadav came to Allahabad and approached the office of Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate and handed over the copy of the order dated 10.04.2026, where after the Caveat Application was filed.
At this juncture, it will be relevant to note that Shri Bhola Yadav, who had appeared before this Court has also made a categorical statement that he had accompanied Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav), who is now aged about 83 years, and had handed over the Vakalatnama along with fees, for the purposes of filing the Caveat Application which was reported in Writ Petition No. 17384 of 2026; and has submitted that the assertions in the Review Application that no Vakalatnama was handed over to Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate is absolutely incorrect.
For ready reference Para-4 of the affidavit dated 12.07.2026 filed on behalf of Shri Bhola Singh Yadav is reproduced below:
“That accordingly, the deponent along with his maternal Uncle Sri Shiv Shanker Yadav came to Allahabad in second week of April 2026 and both of them visited the residence of Shri R.C. Dwivedi Advocate and the deponent deposited a sum of Rs.2,500/- with the Clerk of Sri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate provided to him by Sri Shiv Shanker Yadav for the purposes of filing a Caveat Application.”
From the aforesaid averments and the record, it is admitted that Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) has been engaging the services of Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate since 2015 up to the year 2026; and the said fact has also not been denied by Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) who had appeared before this Court in person; however, the only explanation which he has given is that after the year 2024, when Shri Bhola Yadav colluded with the petitioner, that is Shri Avdhesh Rai, he had severed his relationship with him in the year 2024 and thereafter he had never come to Allahabad along with him.
However, on a pointed query by this Court that if Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate was appearing for Shri Bhola Yadav, with whom he claims to have severed his relationship, then what was the occasion for Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) to again engage his services, in the year 2026, he only submitted that since he trusted Shri R.C. Dwivedi, therefore he had approached him for filing the counter affidavit in Writ-C No. 312 of 2026. For ready reference paragraphs-4, 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed on behalf of Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) dated 13.07.2026, are reproduced below:
“4.That it is further submitted that admittedly Bhola Singh Yadav is a relative of the deponent and he was duly appointed as Daftari in the institution in question in the year 1978; subsequently, he was promoted as Head Clerk and retired on 31.12.2020.
5.That admittedly on earlier occasions in some cases, Bhola Singh Yadav had come to the High Court along with the deponent and Sri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate was engaged in the matters. But on different occasions, the deponent came to the High Court with his son only and lastly he came to the Allahabad High Court with his son on 24.01.2026 on the instructions of his Advocate Sri R.C. Dwivedi for filing Counter Affidavit in Writ Petition No. 312 of 2026 and on the same day from the Photo Identification Centre, High Court, Allahabad, he got two photographs affixed on the Roll of Sri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate and handed over the same to him and after completing the formalities he went back to Ghazipur and after that, he never came to Allahabad earlier.
6.That it is also pertinent to point out here that without any information and consultation to the deponent, Sri Bhola Singh Yadav in the year 2024 filed an Impleadment Application by his own affidavit on 12.07.2024 in Writ Petition No. 37100 of 2023 (the said writ petition was filed by Sri Awadhesh Rai) and Sri Bhola Singh Yadav also filed a separate writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 12365 of 2024 (Bhola Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) and also moved a representation in his name to the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur. After the knowledge of above mentioned writ petitions and Representation to DIOS, Ghazipur, the deponent came to know about the suspicious act and conduct of Sri Bhola Singh Yadav and also came to know that Sri Bhola Singh Yadav, in collusion of Sri Awadhesh Kumar Rai, playing a foul game with the intention to capture the Institution by replacing to the deponent. Hence, after 2024 writ petitions filed by Shri Bhola Singh Yadav, all relations with him was totally finished.
Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate has also filed an affidavit dated 14.07.2026, admitting that there may be some procedural defect on account of inadvertence on the part of his office in filing the Caveat Application and he fairly accepts the said mistake and even suggests to deposit a cost for the inconvenience caused to this Court, tendering his unconditional apology; but however, he is firm on the fact that Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) along with Shri Bhola Yadav had visited his office and handed over the Vakalatnama along with fee for filing the Caveat Application.
In order to examine the aforesaid assertions, this Court had summoned the record of the following writ petitions:-
“(i)Special Appeal No.514 of 2015, Shivshankar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 5 others
(ii)Special Appeal Defective No.750 of 2018, Committee of Management Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College and 6 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others
(iii)Writ-C No.13896 of 2019, Awadhesh Kumar Rai and another vs. State of U.P. and 5 others
(iv)Writ-C No.37100 of 2003, Committee of Management Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College and others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others
(v)Writ-C No. 312 of 2026, Committee of Management Nehru Vidayapeeth Inter College and another Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others.
(vi)Connect this petition with Writ-C No.12365 of 2024 (Bhola Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 2 others.”
By the order dated 06.07.2026, this Court had invited the affidavits of all the parties. For ready reference, the relevant extract of the order dated 06.07.2026 is reproduced below:
“19.Petitioner in Writ-C No.12365 of 2024 i.e. Sri Bhola Singh and Sri Shivshankar Singh (Yadav) shall file their personal affidavits, whether they had made available the Vakalatnama of Sri Shivshankar Singh (Yadav) to the clerk of Sri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate or not. They may also submit their objection, to the personal affidavit filed by Sri R.C. Dwivedi, by the next date fixed; and also remain present before this Court, on the next date fixed. The petitioner may also file an affidavit, specifically stating, as to according to them, whether list finalized in Civil Appeal No.199 of 1984 being list 115-C, is acceptable to them or not; and in case not, then according to them, which is the last undisputed electoral list?”
The matter was next taken up on 13.07.2026 and this Court passed the following order :-
“1.On the request of Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate he is permitted to file impleadment application to implead Shri Bhola Singh Yadav in the array of respondents.
2.Personal affidavit filed on behalf of Shri Bhola Singh Yadav and Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav), is taken on record.
3.Shri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate has filed affidavit of compliance on behalf of Shri Awadhesh Kumar Rai, which is also taken on record.
4.In compliance with this Court's order, Shri Bhola Singh Yadav and Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) are present before this Court.
5.Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) on a pointed query has submitted that he has never engaged the services of Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate in the present case and last time he has visited him was in his chamber on 21.01.2026; and has filed a vakalatnama along with counter affidavit in Writ-C No.312 of 2026 (Committee of Management and another vs. State of U.P. and others).
6.I have examined the records of the writ petitions which were connected on the last occasion and also the personal affidavits filed on behalf of Shri Bhola Singh Yadav and Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav). The personal affidavit of Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) categorically states that Shri Bhola Singh Yadav is relative of the deponent and he was appointed in the Clerical Staff of the Institution and had retired on 31.12.2020. In para-5 of the affidavit a categorical statement has been made that Shri Bhola Singh Yadav came to High Court with the deponent i.e. Shiv Shankar Singh; and Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate was engaged in some matter; and on other occasions, Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) had come to the High Court with his son; and lastly came to Allahabad High Court with his son on 24.01.2026 on the instructions of his Advocate Shri R.C. Dwivedi, for filing counter affidavit in Writ-C No.312 of 2026. For ready reference Para-5 of the affidavit dated 13.07.2026 is reproduced below:-
“5.That, admittedly on earlier occasion in some cases, Bhola Singh Yadav came to High Court with the deponent and Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate was engaged in the matters. But on different occasions deponent came to High Court with his son only and lastly he came to Allahabad High Court with his son on 24.01.2026 on the instructions of his Advocate Shri R.C. Dwivedi for filing Counter Affidavit in Writ Petition No.312 of 2026 and on the same day from the photo identification centre High Court Allahabad, he got two photographs on the Roll of Sri R.C. Dwivedi Advocate and handed over the same to him and after completing the formalities he went back to Ghazipur and after that, he never came to Allahabad earlier.”
7.Further, he proceeds to state on affidavit that Shri Bhola Singh Yadav filed an impleadment application dated 14.07.2024 in Writ Petition No.37100 of 2003, filed by Shri Awadesh Kumar Rai and also filed separate Writ Petition No.12365 of 2024 (Bhola Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others); and thereafter he became suspicious of the conduct of Shri Bhola Singh Yadav, and he also came to know that Shri Bhola Singh Yadav is in collusion with Shri Awadhesh Kumar Rai. He further submits that after 2024 the writ petition filed by Shri Bhola Singh Yadav, all the relations with him was totally finished. For ready reference para-6 of the affidavit is reproduced below:
“6.That, it is also pertinent to point out here that without any consultation to information and the deponent, Sri Bhola Singh Yadav in year 14/7/24 of 2024 filed Impleadment Application by his own affidavit in Writ Petition No. 37100 of 2023 (this writ petition was filed by Sri Awadhesh Rai) and Sri Bhola Singh Yadav also filed separate writ petition i.e. writ petition a no. 12365 of 2024 (Bhola Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) and also moved the representation in his name to District Inspector of Schools Ghazipur. After the knowledge of above mentioned writ petitions and Representation to DIOS Ghazipur, the deponent came to know about the suspicious Act and Conduct of Sri Bhola Singh Yadav and also came to know that Sri Bhola Singh Yadav with the collusion of Sri Awadhesh Kumar Rai, playing a foul game with the intention capture the Institution by replacing to the deponent. Hence after 2024 writ petitions filed by Sri Bhola Singh Yadav, all the relations with him was totally to finished.”
8.It is also on record that Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate moved an application for impleadment on behalf of Shri Bhola Singh Yadav in Writ Petition No.37100 of 2003 and he has also filed Writ Petition No.12365 of 2024, in view of the aforesaid, it is difficult to conceive that an Advocate who is filing writ petitions, as well as, the impleadment application on behalf of the very same person i.e. Shri Bhola Singh Yadav, whom the deponent alleges to have estranged relationship and also he states on affidavit that after 2024 writ petition filed by Shri Bhola Singh Yadav all the relations with him was totally finished; but still he again comes to Allahabad in the month of July, 2026 in the chamber of his Advocate, who now represents his other side; and filed his counter affidavit in Writ Petition No.312 of 2026 (Committee of Management Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College and others vs. State of U.P. and others). Clearly after the filing of the writ petition of 2024, on behalf of the contesting respondents i.e. Bhola Singh Yadav, there was a conflict of interest of the Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate; but still if the case of Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) is to be accepted, then still he had approached him to file counter affidavit in Writ Petition No.312 of 2026 filed by Shri Awadesh Kumar Rai, which as per his own affidavit was colluding with Shri Bhola Singh Yadav. Prima facie, this Court is unable to accept the explanation of Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav).
9.I have also perused the personal affidavit filed today in the Court of Shri Bhola Singh Yadav and the stand which he has taken in the said affidavit is that Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) came to Allahabad in the 2nd week of April, 2026 and both of them together visited the residence of Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate. For ready reference paras-4 and 11 are reproduced below:
“4.That accordingly, the deponent along with his maternal Uncle Sri Shiv Shanker Yadav came to Allahabad in second week of April, 2026 and both of them visited the residence of Sri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate and the deponent deposited a sum of Rs. 2,500/- with the Clerk of Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate provided to him by Sri Shiv Shanker Yadav for the purposes of filing a Caveat Application.
11.That the contents of paragraph no.14 of the said Personal Affidavit are not disputed to the extent that the deponent had accompanied Sri Shiv Shanker Yadav on 24.01.2026. Rest of the averments, being matter of record, do not call for any reply from the deponent.”
10.From the aforesaid, it is evident that there is clearly a conflict in the stands taken by Shri Bhola Singh Yadav and Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav). No matter, whoever’s version is correct but one thing is certain that none of the parties support the version of handing over the vakalatnama to Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate; and this Court is unable to accept that Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate, would manufacture the vakalatnama. Though he has accepted false verification of the signature of Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav), on the vakalatnama, by his clerk. This aspect shall be considered on the next date.
11.In view of the aforesaid, now I am adverting to the merits of the case. This Court, vide its order dated 29.04.2016 passed in Writ-C No. 19276 of 2016 (Committee of Management Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College, Revatipur and another vs. State of U.P. and others), filed at the behest of Shri Awadhesh Kumar Rai, after examining the arguments of the parties regarding the validity of the elections, have observed that in the order dated 16.04.2016 passed by the Joint Director of Education, whereby, on the basis of the records, he had categorically stated that the elections said to have been held by the Authorized Controller in the year 2009 were doubtful, and thereafter concluded by holding that no duly elected Committee seemed to be managing the Institution; and directed that fresh elections be held by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur, under the supervision of an Election Officer to be appointed by him; and which order was the subject matter of challenge in Writ-C No. 19276 of 2016.
12.Thereafter, prima facie, this Court held that the dispute between the parties is with regard to holding of the election of the year 2009 by Smt. Malti Rai and whether various orders purportedly signed by her or not, in the opinion of the Court, cannot be decided without seeking her version on the same. In view of the aforesaid, till the next date listing, no elections were directed to be held, vide order dated 29.04.2016.
13.The District Inspector of Schools-Smt. Malti Rai, wrote a letter to Joint Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi on 23.07.2016, wherein, an observations was made that the District Inspector of Schools vide its letter dated 09.09.2009 had approved the list 115-C (213 Members) for holding the elections and Smt. Malti Rai has specifically denied her signature on the election proceedings nor such proceedings are there on the dispatch register. For ready reference letter dated 23.07.2016 is reproduced below:
“प्रेषक, जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक चन्दौली
सेवा में, संयुक्त शिक्षा निदेशक वाराणसी मण्डली वाराणसी
पत्रांक संख्या / 316 / 2016-17 / दिनांक 23.07.2016
विषय:- माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में योजित याचिका संख्या 19276/16 नेहरू विद्या पीठ इण्टर कालेज देवतीपुर गाजीपुर में पारित आदेश दिनांक 29.04.2016 के सम्बन्ध में आख्या।
महोदय,
उपर्युक्त विषयक आपके पत्रांक प्रबन्धक-3/1465-67/16-17 दिनांक 11.05.2016 के द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में योजित याचिका संख्या 19276/16 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 29.04.2016 के अनुपालन में नेहरू विद्यापीठ इण्टर कालेज रेवतीपुर गाजीपुर की प्रबन्ध समिति के चुनाव वर्ष 2009 के सम्बन्ध में अवगत कराना है कि मैं जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक गाजीपुर के पद पर दिनांक 17.06.2008 से 18.11.2009 तक कार्यरत रही, मेरे कार्यकाल में नेहरू विद्यापीठ इण्टर कालेज रेवतीपुर गाजीपुर के प्रबन्ध समिति का चुनाव कराया जाना मेरे संज्ञान में नहीं है। जैसा कि निम्नलिखित संलग्न पत्राजातों से स्पष्ट है।
1.जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक गाजीपुर के पत्रांक शि/548/9-10 दिनांक 9.9.2009 द्वारा विद्यालय के प्रबन्ध संचालकों न्यायालय द्वारा मान्य 115 वीं की 231 सदस्य वाली सूची से चुनाव कराने की अनुमति प्रदान की गयी है जबकि प्रबन्ध संचालक के प्रबन्ध/01/09/10 दिनांक 22.09.2009 द्वारा जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक से चुनाव कराने की अनुमति एवं पर्यवेक्षक नियुक्ति किये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है, वो पत्रक मेरे हस्ताक्षर द्वारा निर्गत नहीं किया गया है। छायाप्रति संलग्न उक्त दोनों पत्रों में स्वयं ही विरोधाभासी स्थिति प्रकट होती है क्योंकि प्रबन्ध संचालक द्वारा चुनाव कराने की अनुमति की मांग की जानी चाहिए तत्पश्चात ही जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक द्वारा किसी विवाद की स्थिति में होने की स्थिति में भी चुनाव कराने की अनुमति प्रदान की जाती है। इस प्रकार यह दोनों पत्र फर्जी एवं कूटरचित तरीके से तैयार किया गया है।
2.इसी प्रकार जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक गाजीपुर के पत्र दिनांक 15.10.2009 द्वारा श्री व्यासमुनि राय प्रवक्ता राजकीय सिटी इण्टर कालेज गाजीपुर को पर्यवेक्षक नियुक्ति किया गया है जिसमें प्रबन्ध संचालक को अवगत ही नहीं कराया गया है। यह भी पत्र कूटरचित एवं फर्जी व मेरे हस्ताक्षर से निर्गत नहीं है (संलग्न है 15.10.09 के पत्र की छाया प्रति)
3.तत्कालीन जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक श्री भाष्कर मिश्रा के पत्र पत्रांक शि/825/10-11 दिनांक 06.08.2010 द्वारा उक्त संस्था की प्रबन्ध समिति के सम्बन्ध में संयुक्त शिक्षा निदेशक वाराणसी मण्डल वाराणसी को प्रेषित आख्या के पैरा सी 04 में स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लेखित किया गया है कि अप्रैल 09 से 15.10.2009 के मध्य मात्र 02 नम्बर डिस्पैच हेतु प्रयोग किया जाना असंभव प्रतीत हो रहा है। इससे यह स्पष्ट है कि उक्त पत्र कार्यालय के डिस्पैच पंजिका में अंकित नहीं है इस प्रकार आख्या में यह भी उल्लेख किया गया है कि श्रीमती राय द्वारा प्रस्तुत चुनाव सम्बन्धित पत्रजातों तथा चुनाव कार्यक्रम प्रकाशित कराने की अनुमति, चुनाव अधिकारी की नियुक्ति, चुनाव पर्यवेक्षक की नियुक्ति, विषयक पत्र कार्यालय के डिस्पैच पंजिका में अंकित नहीं है।
तत्कालीन जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक श्री भाष्कर मिश्रा की आख्या दिनांक 06.05.2010 के समय अवलोकन से स्वतः स्पष्ट है कि मेरे कार्यकाल में संदर्भित संस्था की प्रबन्ध समिति के चुनाव सम्बन्धित मेरे हस्ताक्षर से निर्गत सभी पत्र फर्जी एवं कूटरचित है।
कृपया उपरोक्तानुसार आख्या एवं संलग्न कर अवलोकनार्थ एवं आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु प्रेषित है।
संलग्नक:- उपरोक्तानुसार ।
भवदीय
(डा० मालती राय)
जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक चन्दौली"
14.It has been submitted that Writ Petition No.19276 of 2016 was eventually dismissed as infructuous by the consent of both the parties. For ready reference order dated 18.08.2023 is reproduced below:
“1.Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the writ petition has become infructuous and therefore it may be dismissed as infructuous to which learned counsel for respondents has no objection.
2.In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
3.Interim order, if any, stands vacated.”
15.The effect of the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition and too by consent of both parties can only lead to the conclusion, that the order dated 16.04.2016 passed by the Joint Director of Education has attained finality and, as such, there were no valid elections stated to have been held in the year 2009; and a fresh election ought to have been held. However, at this stage, this Court only records the aforesaid submission, for the purposes of deciding the review application.
16.This Court now proceeds to form the following points of determination the following opinion:-
(i)Considering the affidavits which have been filed by the parties, the averments made in the affidavit filed along with the review application, are to be dealt with and it is to be whether it amounts to fraud on the court and it is to be treated as one affecting administration of justice?
(a)In the review application, the vakalatnama of Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) is alleged to have been filed, which has been duly verified by Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate. However, as recorded in the previous order, Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate, had stated that his clerk, Shri Rajesh Yadav, had verified the signature on the vakalatnama and that he had only signed the application. Even if the said version is found to be correct, then whether Shri Rajesh Yadav, Clerk, is guilty of filing forged documents before this Court?
17.In order to proceed further, this Court is of the view that following directions be issued for the Signature Expert:-
(i)The signature of Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate (A/R-0992/2012) by way of verification on the vakalatnama, filed in the caveat application and on the caveat application itself, is to be examined by the signature expert, as to whether, the said signature has been made by one and very same person.
(ii)Secondly, the signature of Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) on the vakalatnama along with the caveat application, as well as, his signature in vakalatnama filed in Writ Petition No.312 of 2026, (which is admitted to be his own) is also be compared; and a report to be submitted as to whether the signature on the vakalatnama of the caveat application and the signature of the vakalatnama in Writ Petition No.312 of 2026 is that of one and the same person.
(iii)Thirdly, it is also to be compared whether the signature on the caveat application and Writ Petition No.13896 of 2019 is of the one and same person.
18.In view of the aforesaid, the Bench Secretary is directed to keep the caveat application in Writ Petition No.17384 of 2026 and Writ Petition No.13896 of 2019, as well as, vakalatnama in Writ Petition No.312 of 2016 in a sealed cover, which was produced in compliance of the order dated 05.05.2026 and was directed to be opened by the Bench Secretary.
19.Office is directed to restore the remaining vakalatnama in their respective writ petitions, except the vakaltnama which has been directed to be kept in a sealed cover, to be examined by a “Signature Expert”.
20.In view of the aforesaid, the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to arrange for a “Signature Expert” and handover the 3 vakalatnamas as stated herein above and being kept in a sealed cover, requiring the Signature Expert to submit his/her report as directed herein above, within a period of 2 weeks from today.
21.List this case on 28.07.2026, in top ten cases, along with a copy of the Signature Expert’s report, in a sealed cover.
22.Shri Bhola Singh Yadav and Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) are directed to be present on the next date fixed.”
In furtherance of the order dated 13.07.2026, a report was submitted by the Handwriting Expert from Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and this Court passed an order dated 28.07.2026.
“1.In compliance of the order dated 13.07.2026, a report has been submitted by the Deputy Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, U.P. before the Registrar (Civil); which has been placed before this court in a sealed cover. On the direction of the Court, the Bench Secretary has removed the sealed and placed the report before this Court.
2.A perusal of the aforesaid report indicates that sample signatures of Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate were marked as S-1 to S-6, for the purposes of its comparison with the signatures on the vakalatnama and the caveat application, which has been marked as Q-2, Q-3 and Q-4.
3.Similarly, the signatures of Shri Shiv Shankar Singh i.e. respondent no.2, who has filed review application before this Court, were also taken and marked as S-7 to S-13, for being compared with his signatures on the various vakalatnamas being marked as Q-11, Q-12 and Q-13.
4.Along with sample signatures, admitted signatures in the bank account, were also obtained by the concerned officials for the purposed of the comparison of the signatures on the document including the vakalatnama. Perusal of the report further indicates that following signatures were marked on the documents:
(i)Q-11- Signature of Shri Shiv Shankar Singh on the vakalatnama, which was filed along with caveat application dated 16.04.2026. (disputed signature)
(ii)Q-12- Signature of Shiv Shankar Singh on the vakalatnama in Writ Petition No. 13896 of 2019 (Awdhesh Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and Others), (admitted signature)
(iii)Q-13- Signature of Shiv Shankar Singh on the vakalatnama which was filed along with caveat application in Writ Petition No. 312 of 2026. (admitted signature)
5.The report clearly indicates that neither the signature being marked as Q-11 nor the admitted signatures marked as Q-12 and Q-13; matches with the sample signatures of Shri Shiv Shankar Singh, which was marked as S-7 to S-13.
6.The signatures of Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate were also taken and marked as S-1 to S-6 and the same was compared with the following signatures:-
(i)Q-1- Verification by Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate on the vakalatnama filed along with caveat application dated 16.04.2026. (Denied by Shri R.C. Dwivedi and alleged to have been signed by Shri Rajesh Yadav, Clerk).
(ii)Q-2- Signature of Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate on the vakalatnama (Denied by Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate and alleged to have been signed by Shri Rajesh Yadav, Clerk).
(iii)Q-3- Signature on the application by Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate. (admitted)
(iv)Q-4- Signature on the cover page of the caveat application dated 16.04.2026 (denied by Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate and alleged to have been signed by Shri Rajesh Yadav, Clerk).
7.As per the report, signatures marked as Q-2, Q-3 and Q-4 differs.
8.In view of the aforesaid, Office is directed to provide a copy of the report dated 27.07.2026, submitted by Scientific Officers, F.S.L., Prayagraj to Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate and learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shiv Shankar Singh, who has filed the review application.
9.List this case on 10.08.2026 at 2.00 PM, for final hearing. On the said date, Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) and Shri Bhola Singh Yadav, shall remain present before the court.
10.In the meantime, objection, if any, to the said report may be filed. It shall be open for the parties to file their written submissions, if any.”
Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 10.08.2026 and Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate submitted that he did not want to file any objection to the Experts Report, Shri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant also submitted that he does not want to file any objection to the report submitted. Shri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate also did not propose to file any further affidavit or objection to the report and accordingly, the Expert Report has attained finality.
A perusal of the report submitted by FSL, Prayagraj dated 27.07.2026, as reproduced hereinabove, makes one thing evident that even the admitted signatures of Shri Shiv Shankar Singh @ Yadav did not match with the sample signatures obtained by the Handwriting Expert or the signatures in the Bank Account; and as such the assertions made in the affidavit filed along with the Review Application cannot be accepted, to the effect that Shri Shiv Shankar Singh @ Yadav did not sign the Vakalatnama, which was filed along with the Caveat Application filed by Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate.
Now, I proceed to examine the conduct of Shri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the petitioners and as alleged by the applicant, that he had filed the present writ petition with material concealments and by making a statement regarding the undisputed election held in the year 2009, he has proceeded to misguide this Court, in collusion with the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6, i.e., Shri R.C. Dwivedi, at the time of passing of the order dated 05.05.2026.
The contention of Shri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate is that the elections were held on 25.10.2009 and thereafter, upon completion of the tenure, a fresh election was also held in July, 2012 as per the Scheme of Administration and the signatures of the Manager were duly attested on 28.07.2012 and since the tenure after the elections held on 25.10.2009 was already over, therefore, according to him, the same was not disputed. However, the applicant has already brought on record various orders which clearly demonstrate that the elections of 2009 was disputed and this Court has already dealt the same in detail herein above, which leaves no area for doubt that after the order dated 16.04.2016 passed by the Joint Director of Education, whereby on the basis of the record he had categorically stated that the elections said to have been held by the Authorized Controller in the year 2009, were doubtful and thereafter concluded by holding that no duly elected Committee of Management seems to be managing the Institution; and further had issued a direction for holding the fresh elections; and Smt. Malti Rai, the then District Inspector of Schools, who was said to have herself held the elections, has made it evident through a letter dated 23.07.2016, that she had never conducted the elections in the year 2009 and as such, all these documents being canvassed by Shri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and has been representing Shri Awadhesh Rai since earlier times, it cannot be said that the said proceedings and the orders of the Joint Director of Education and the letter of the then District Inspector of Schools, Smt. Malti Rai was not within his knowledge.
Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that Shri S.C. Dwivedi and Shri Awadhesh Rai (petitioner) therein, both were equally responsible for concealing the aforesaid facts and asserting before the Court that the last undisputed election was held on 25.10.2009. Shri S.C. Dwivedi has also tried to rebut the said material on the basis of facts which were not pleaded in the writ petition and tried to justify the election held on 25.10.2009, but once the writ petition having been dismissed against the order dated 16.04.2016 passed by the Joint Director of Education, there seems to be no area of doubt that Shri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate is guilty of concealing material facts before this Court.
On the contrary, as far as the conduct of Shri R.C. Dwivedi is concerned, he has fairly submitted that since his client, i.e. Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav), was undisputedly continuing in the Management since 1973, and the elections were imperative after the dismissal of the writ petition against the order dated 16.04.2016, on 18.08.2023, he had merely consented for holding the elections, on the list suggested by the petitioner.
Another affidavit dated 13.07.2026 has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 and 7, wherein also averments on the aforesaid lines have been made, but no plausible explanation has been given about the letters of Smt. Malti Rai as well as the order dated 16.04.2016, which had attained finality after dismissal of the writ petition against the said order, and as such any amount of explanation on that too, which is not part of the records, cannot be accepted on behalf of Shri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate and in the circumstances, since primarily the statement was made on behalf of the petitioner, regarding the undisputed elections which resulted in the order dated 05.05.2026, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that Shri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate was instrumental in misguiding the Court.
There is a distinction between active concealment and mere inadvertence or wrong interpretation of the factual or the legal position. Once the petitioner has approached this Court, he is expected to disclose all relevant facts and material which may constitute a bundle of fact giving rise to a cause of action.
I may also note that following observation was made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 52324 of 2009 that “Smt. Malti Rai, the District Inspector of Schools is not only guilty of grave misconduct in managing the affairs of the institution but also not fit to continue in Government service as a Gazetted Officer". The aforesaid observation clearly indicates the state of affairs, in the Institution and it is this elections which the petitioner asserts to be undisputed.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court deems it proper to settle the issue and to cause a deterrent effect on the litigants to file such frivolous review applications, and at times on the advice of the Advocates, merely because a particular nature of the order does not suit their interest.
Profession Misconduct
From the aforesaid facts what emerges is that on one side, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made active concealment of material facts and asserted that the last undisputed election was in the year 2009; but on the other side also, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6 did not contest the aforesaid proposition, since according to his understanding the same was not detrimental to the interest of his client; but the fact remains that both the assertions were against the correct factual position, which led to the miscarriage of justice and a direction being issued by this Court in good faith.
Legal profession in India has always been regarded as a noble profession and Advocates have always been regarded primarily as an "officer of the Court" than mere agents of their clients; and the dual responsibility which is casted upon an Advocate is much higher than merely a professional responsibility.
In case there is a breach of the said responsibility, it shall strike at the very foundation of the administration of justice and destroying the public confidence in the legal system. There has never been a dearth of unscrupulous litigants who try to maneuver their way through the process of the Court, without hesitating or blinking for a moment, in case the outcome suits their mis-endeavours.
The Indian legal system has constructed a multi-layered framework to address such conduct, drawing upon the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India Rules, the Rules of Court i.e. framed by different High Courts and the Supreme Court, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, 2023) and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The primary legislation which deals with "professional misconduct" is the Advocates Act, 1961 and it provides the comprehensive framework for disciplining Advocates. Under Chapter V of the Act of 1961, Section 35 empowers the Bar Council to deal with complaints and misconducts against the Advocates and consequential suspension or removal of the Advocates name from the Roll. Section 36 and Section 36-B vests appellate and original jurisdiction in the Bar Council of India in appropriate cases.
The Bar Council of India Rules framed under Section 49 of the Advocate Act, 1961, elaborates from the professional standards expected from the Advocates and the duty towards the Court, which requires an Advocate to maintain candour, fairness and dignity; to assist the Court in the administration of justice and never to mislead the court by any false facts or incorrect statements of law.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for safeguards by way of Order 11 of C.P.C., with discovery and inspection of documents and enables the Court to compel the production of genuine documents, thereby exposing the falsity of fabricated documents.
Order-XIII empowers the Court to impound any document that appears to be false and suspicious; and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 preserves the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of law; and to impose exemplary costs on parties and Advocates who abuse the process of the Court.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act No. 47 of 2023) supplements the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in this regard, with Section 67(2), Section 73 which requires proof of the execution and handwriting of documents, enables the Courts to refer suspicious documents to handwriting experts and to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 allows the Court to draw an adverse inference against a party who withholds or suppresses genuine documents.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [BNS] makes provisions for taking measures, for example under Section 336, 340 of BNS, which criminalizes the making of false documents, forgery for the purposes of cheating and use of false documents as genuine. Section 318(4) of BNS deals with cheating and Section 242 and 341 of BNS deal with false personation and fraudulent claims in Courts.
The position of an Advocate who commits or abets such offence is considered aggravated because the act involves the betrayal of the trust placed in the Advocate both by the client and by the Court. The present case is one such case where with the help of the FSL the issue in hand has been examined and from the report, which was not contested by any of the parties, it became evident that the applicant in the review application has not been able to demonstrate that his signatures were forged on the Vakalatnama which was filed along with caveat by Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate; as the report revealed that even the signatures on the Vakalatnama in different petitions, which were admitted, were not comparable with the sample signatures and signatures in the bank; and as such the Court can only come to the conclusion that the review application was filed only to recall an order which may not be suiting the applicants in the review application and in the process an Advocate who was representing the client for the last more than a decade has been put in the spot; and his services as an officer of the Court have been put in jeopardy.
This Court is conscious of the fact that the said Advocate is also guilty of not taking due precautions and admits certain procedural lapses. However, from the records and pleadings, it cannot be said that Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate had made any attempt to misguide the Court by merely accepting the suggestions made on behalf of the petitioner; which this Court has already found to have been made after material concealment in the petition, whereas on the contrary the standards which this Court expects from the Members of the Bar, is found to be wanted, on account of the conduct of Shri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate.
Vakalatnama Without Authority
Vakalatnama is a formal instrument by which a litigant authorises an advocate to appear, act and plead on his behalf before a court and is a legal foundation of the Advocate - client relationship, in the context of judicial proceedings.
The recognition of appearance of an Advocate by the Court is premised entirely upon the existence of a valid and subsisting Vakalatnama. The filing of a Vakalatnama without the knowledge or consent of the party purportedly represented, constitutes a misrepresentation to the Court.
Order III, Rules 1, 2 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that appearances, applications and acts in or to any Court may be made or done by the party in person or by his recognized agent or by a pleader duly appointed by or on behalf of such party. The expression "duly appointed" imports the requirement of a genuine, conscious and voluntary authorization by the party. Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with compromise of suits, recognizes that an Advocate can bind the client to a compromise only if properly authorized to do so.
This Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that a consent decree or compromise order obtained on the basis of an unauthorized Vakalatnama or without express authority to compromise, may be set aside on an application by the aggrieved party, as it does not constitute a valid consent in the eyes of law.
A deliberate violation of the aforesaid is not to be treated as a mere procedural irregularity, but is to be viewed as an abuse of the process of the Court, going to the root of the validity of the proceedings.
In the present case, an allegation has been levelled against an Advocate of this Court, who has a long-standing experience and has been regarded as an officer of the Court. The Applicant has not even hesitated in making an allegation, to the extent that the order from this Court was obtained by way of collusion, on the basis of a forged Vakalatnama.
This Court, doubting the allegations made by the applicant in the review application, had resorted to calling for a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), which remained undisputed by all the parties; and as such, the signatures of Shri Shiv Shankar Yadav (Respondent No. 6) could not be conclusively held to be forged on the Vakalatnama filed along with the caveat application, which was relied upon in the present writ petition. As such, the instance of such unscrupulous litigation needs to be deprecated and suitable orders shall be passed on the said premises, in the latter part of the order.
Relevant Judgements on the Aforesaid Issue
In the case of Bhagwan Singh vs. State of U.P. and others1 on discovering that an appeal was filed through a forged vakalatnama without knowledge or authority of the litigant, the Supreme Court did not confined itself in disposing off the appeal but had directed the Registry to send a copy of the order to the Bar Council of India for necessary action, while simultaneously handing over the entire matter to the C.B.I. for investigation holding that the Advocates involved had “with the assistance of Battery of Advocates” made brazen attempts to the fraud both the High Court and Supreme Court. For ready reference relevant paragraphs of the Bhagwan Singh (supra) is reproduced below:
“8.The Court on 31-7-2024 [Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2313] passed the following order recording the statements of Mr Anubhav, Mr R.P.S. Yadav and Mr Bhagwan Singh : (Bhagwan Singh case [Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2313] , SCC OnLine SC paras 1-7)
“1.In continuation of yesterday's order, Mr Anubhav, learned Advocate-on-Record whose “vakalatnama” has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Bhagwan Singh in the special leave petition is present in the Court. He states his full name to be Anubhav Yashwant Yadav. He further states that though on the “vakalatnama” he had identified and attested the signature of the petitioner, that was not correct, and that he had received the “vakalatnama” with the signature of the petitioner Bhagwan Singh from the Advocate Mr R.P.S. Yadav, who is also present in the Court.
2.Yesterday, Mr R.P.S. Yadav was present in the Court and Mr Anubhav was not present, and on our being asked, Mr R.P.S. Yadav had stated that the “vakalatnama” was signed by the petitioner Bhagwan Singh in his presence. Today, he states that he had received the “vakalatnama” already signed by the petitioner Bhagwan Singh from one lawyer named Karan Singh Yadav, who is practising in the Allahabad High Court.
3.The petitioner Bhagwan Singh is also present in the Court and he states that he does not know either Mr Anubhav or Mr R.P.S. Yadav or Karan Singh, and that he came to know about the present proceedings having been filed in his name only when the concerned Police Station of his area came to serve notice of this Court on him in respect of the present SLP proceedings.” …….
09.On 9-8-2024, the said Advocate Mr Karan Singh Yadav practising in Allahabad High Court remained present before the Court and stated that he had received the papers of the case along with signed “vakalatnama” i.e. with the signature of the appellant Bhagwan Singh from his client Sukhpal Singh, who happened to be the son-in-law of Bhagwan Singh. He also stated that he had appeared before the High Court in Recall Application No. 3 of 2020 filed on behalf of Ms Rinki, daughter of Bhagwan Singh and wife of Sukhpal Singh, for recalling of the order dated 16-12-2019 [Ajay Katara v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 7818] (which is impugned herein), and since Sukhpal Singh wanted to file the special leave petition before the Supreme Court, he (Karan Singh) had asked Sukhpal Singh to get the “vakalatnama” with the signature of either Rinki or Bhagwan Singh. Thereafter the said Sukhpal Singh gave him the papers along with the “vakalatnama” signed in the name of Bhagwan Singh, which he had handed over to the Advocate Mr R.P.S. Yadav, practising in the Supreme Court.
10.It may be noted that the said Bhagwan Singh who was also present in the Court on 9-8-2024 stated that his daughter Rinki had eloped and married with Sukhpal Singh in 2013 and since then he had not met either Sukhpal Singh or his daughter Rinki, and therefore he could not have signed the “vakalatnama” or the papers of the SLP. At this juncture Mr R.P.S. Yadav, learned advocate stated that he had prepared the memo of SLP and got it attested through the notary Mr A.N. Singh and at that time the appellant Bhagwan Singh was not present; and that he had identified the signature of Bhagwan Singh before the notary, and thereafter handed over the papers to the AOR Mr Anubhav for presenting in the Supreme Court. The learned AOR Mr Anubhav Yashwant Yadav also stated that Mr R.P.S. Yadav having prepared the SLP memo and got the papers ready, he had put his signature as an AOR on the memo of SLP and also on the “vakalatnama” stating that he had attested and identified the signature of appellant Bhagwan Singh.
38.From the aforesaid state of affairs, we are of the opinion that Respondent 3 Mr Sukhpal, son of Rishipal and Respondent 4 Ms Rinki, wife of Sukhpal, with the able assistance of a battery of advocates in the Supreme Court, namely, AOR Mr Anubhav Yashwant Yadav, Mr R.P.S. Yadav, Mr Karan Singh Yadav along with the advocate and notary Mr A.N. Singh, and a battery of advocates in the High Court, namely, Santosh Kumar Yadav, Jai Singh Yadav, Alok Kumar Yadav and Karan Singh Yadav and many other unknown persons had made brazen attempts to falsely implicate Respondent 2 Ajay Katara by filing false proceedings in the name of Bhagwan Singh in the High Court and Supreme Court, by filing false and fabricated documents. Though, the said Bhagwan Singh had never met any of the said advocates nor had instructed any advocates to file the proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court and, though he had never met his daughter Rinki and son-in-law, Sukh Pal since the time they had eloped and married with each other in 2013, they with the help and assistance of the said advocates had tried to misuse and abuse the process of law and malign the stream of justice.
43.To create or to assist creating false documents and to use them as genuine knowing them to be false in the Court proceedings, to falsely implicate somebody in the false proceedings filed in the name of the person who had no knowledge whatsoever about the same are the acts attributable to the offences punishable under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They are also acts of frauds committed not only on the person sought to be falsely implicated and on the person in whose name such false proceedings are filed without his knowledge and consent, but is a fraud committed on the Courts. No court can allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud and no court can allow its eyes to be closed to the fact that it is being used as an instrument of fraud. As held by this Court in V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer, (2012) 12 SCC 133 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 136 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 587 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 416] : (SCC p. 151, para 45)
“45.The judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression or abuse, or a means in the process of the court to subvert justice, for the reason that the court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice. The interests of justice and public interest coalesce, and therefore, they are very often one and the same. A petition or an affidavit containing a misleading and/or an inaccurate statement, only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of process of the court.”
44.The matter assumes serious concern when the advocates who are the officers of the Court are involved and when they actively participate in the ill-motivated litigations of the unscrupulous litigants, and assist them in misusing and abusing the process of law to achieve their ulterior purposes.
45.People repose immense faith in the judiciary, and the Bar being an integral part of the justice delivery system, has been assigned a very crucial role for preserving the independence of justice and the very democratic set-up of the country. The legal profession is perceived to be essentially a service oriented, noble profession and the lawyers are perceived to be very responsible officers of the court and an important adjunct of the administration of justice.
46.In the process of overall depletion and erosion of ethical values and degradation of the professional ethics, the instances of professional misconduct are also on rise. There is a great sanctity attached to the proceedings conducted in the court. Every advocate putting his signatures on the vakalatnamas and on the documents to be filed in the Courts, and every Advocate appearing for a party in the courts, particularly in the Supreme Court, the highest court of the country is presumed to have filed the proceedings and put his/her appearance with all sense of responsibility and seriousness. No professional much less legal professional, is immune from being prosecuted for his/her criminal misdeeds.
47.In the extraordinary facts and circumstances, and considering the gravity and seriousness of the case, when the High Court and the Supreme Court were sought to be taken for a ride and when the entire justice delivery system was sought to be put to stake, by Respondent 3 Mr Sukhpal, Respondent 4 Ms Rinki, and their associates and the advocates concerned, who helped them in forging and fabricating the documents to be filed in the High Court and Supreme Court, and to pursue the false proceedings filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh without his knowledge, consent or authority, we deem it appropriate to hand over the investigation of the case to CBI. …...
48.This is the opportune time to remind the advocates about the Standard of Professional Misconduct and Etiquettes as contained in Chapter II Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules. As stated in the Preamble thereof, an advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court, a privileged member of the community, and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his non-professional capacity, may still be improper for an advocate. Though an Advocate is expected to fearlessly uphold the interests of his client, his conduct must conform to the Rules of Conduct and Etiquettes laid down in the said Chapter, both in letter and in spirit.
As observed by this Court in Saumya Chauras vs. Enforcement Directorate (2024) 6 SCC 410: (SCC p. 411, para (13)
"13.It cannot be gainsaid that every party approaching the court seeking justice is expected to make full and correct disclosure of material facts and that every advocate being an officer of the court, though appearing for a particular party is expected to assist the court fairly in carrying out its function to administer the justice. It hardly needs to be emphasised that a very high standard of professionalism and legal acumen is expected from the advocates particularly designated Senior Advocates appearing in the highest court of the country so that their professionalism may be followed and emulated by the advocates practising in the High Courts and the District Courts. Though it is, wie that the advocates would settle the pleadings and argue in the courts on instructions given by their clients, however their duty to diligently verify the facts from the record of the case, using their legal acumen for which they are engaged, cannot be obliviated." (emphasis supplied)”
I may also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kunj Bihari (Dead) through LR Dilip Tripathi Vs. Jhinguri @ Dausiya & others2. In the said case, upon a report of the handwriting expert confirming that the Vakalatnama did not bear the signature of the party on whose behalf it was purportedly filed, the Hon'ble High Court restrained the Advocate concerned from appearing in the matter with immediate effect, while also directing scrutiny of the conduct of the attesting Notary under the Notaries Act, 1952 and the M.P. High Court Rules.
The said judgment demonstrates that the corrective and disciplinary responses in matters relating to filing of Vakalatnama without authority often proceed in tandem, rather than consequentially. For ready reference relevant paragraphs of the Kunj Bihari (supra) is reproduced below:
“10.Thus, it is clear that Pradeep Kumar Tiwari has accepted that whatever was mentioned in the affidavit was not his statement, but that was an affidavit which was got typed by Dharmesh Chaturvedi and he has signed the same.
19.Shri S.K. Pathak fairly concedes that he does not wish to challenge the report of the handwriting expert, according to which, the Vakalatnama was not signed by Dilip Pandey. Once the said finding is not challenged by Shri Pathak, then it is clear that his appearance on behalf of Dilip Pandey was unauthorized and was based on a forged Vakalatnama and in spite of the information given by Dilip Pandey, Shri S.K. Pathak refused to withdraw himself on behalf of respondent no. 3. No lawyer can represent a party on the basis of a forged Vakalatnama. Vakalatnama is an authority letter which is executed by the litigant thereby giving an authority to the concerning advocate to appear on his behalf and in absence of any Vakalatnama, no lawyer except designated Senior Advocate can appear on behalf of the litigants.
22.Faced with such a situation, it is submitted by Shri S.K. Pathak that he has realized his mistake and, therefore, he may be pardoned for the mistake which he has committed and in fact he should have withdrawn the Vakalatnama as soon as he was informed by Dilip Pandey that the Vakalatnama does not bear his signatures. It is also submitted by Shri S.K. Pathak that he has undergone bypass surgery twice and is in practice for the last several years and his next generation is also in practice.
23.Since Shri Pathak has realized his mistake, therefore, it is believed that in future he would ensure that at least from his office there shall not be any representation on behalf of any litigant unless and until the Vakalatnama is duly verified by him.
24.As already held, filing of a false affidavit is an offence, apart from contempt of Court. A false affidavit of Pradeep Kumar Tiwari was filed by Shri S.K. Pathak, Advocate, therefore, he also cannot get away from his liability. But looking to the controversy involved in the present case and apologies tendered by Shri S.K. Pathak, Advocate as well as Shri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, this Court is of the considered opinion that for the time being their apologies can be accepted subject to payment of cost. It is submitted by Shri Pathak that he is ready to deposit cost of Rs. 15,000/- for creating a situation where this Court instead of deciding the case on merits was required to decide as to whether Shri Pathak was appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3-Dilip Pandey on the strength of a genuine Vakalatnama or a forged Vakalatnama. Similarly, Shri Vyas has submitted that since respondent no. 7 has realized his mistake, therefore, he may be dealt with liberally. 25. Accordingly, by issuing a warning to Shri S.K. Pathak, Advocate as well as to Pradeep Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Lakhpati Singh Tiwari, Aged about 30 years, R/o Utaili, Tahsil Raghuraj Nagar, District Satna (MP), IA No. 16531/2023 is finally disposed of subject to payment of cost of Rs. 15,000/- each by Shri S.K. Pathak, Advocate and Pradeep Kumar Tiwari before the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from today. It is made clear that in case if the cost is not deposited, then the Registrar General of this Court apart from initiating the proceedings for recovery of cost, shall also register a case for contempt of Court.”
The Apex Court in the case of Narain Pandey Vs. Pannalal Pandey3, held that the Bar Council's disciplinary Committee must treat such conduct with commensurate gravity and restored the findings that filing of a false vakalatnama and fictitious compromise was "extremely grave and serious professional misconduct", while ordering suspension for three years despite an Appellate Committee’s leniency. For ready reference, Paragraph Nos. 9, 11, 12 and 20 are reproduced below:
“9.The consideration of the matter by the Disciplinary Committee, BCI is clearly flawed. It overlooked the most vital aspect that seven witnesses tendered in evidence by the complainant had stated clearly and unequivocally that the respondent advocate had filed forged and fabricated vakalatnamas on their behalf and they had not filed any compromise in the Consolidation Court. The respondent advocate had not at all cross-examined these witnesses on the above aspect although they were cross-examined on other aspects. There was ample documentary evidence as well which proved the allegations made in the complaint that the respondent advocate had filed forged and fabricated vakalatnamas as well as compromises in diverse proceedings before the Consolidation Court.
11.The finding recorded by the Disciplinary Committee, BCI, “this Committee on perusal of the allegations made in the complaint does not agree with the findings of appearing on behalf of both the sides and forging the signatures arrived at by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and the order wherein the appellant is debarred from practise for seven years” cannot be sustained.
12.On careful consideration of the entire material placed on record, we are of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Committee, BCUP that the respondent advocate was involved in a very serious professional misconduct by filing vakalatnamas without any authority and later on filing fictitious compromises which adversely affected the interest of the parties concerned deserve to be restored and we order accordingly.
20.In the light of the above legal position, we now consider the question of punishment. We have restored the finding of the Disciplinary Committee, BCUP viz. that the respondent advocate was involved in a very serious professional misconduct by filing vakalatnamas without any authority and later on filing fictitious compromises. The professional misconduct committed by the respondent is extremely grave and serious. He has indulged in mischief-making. An advocate found guilty of having filed vakalatnamas without authority and then filing fictitious compromises without any authority deserves punishment commensurate with the degree of misconduct that meets the twin objectives — deterrence and correction. Fraudulent conduct of a lawyer cannot be viewed leniently lest the interest of the administration of justice and the highest traditions of the Bar may become casualty. By showing undue sympathy and leniency in a matter such as this where the advocate has been found guilty of grave and serious professional misconduct, the purity and dignity of the legal profession will be compromised. Any compromise with the purity, dignity and nobility of the legal profession is surely bound to affect the faith and respect of the people in the rule of law. Moreover, the respondent advocate had been previously found to be involved in a professional misconduct and he was reprimanded. Having regard to all these aspects, in our view, it would be just and proper if the respondent advocate is suspended from practise for a period of three years from today. We order accordingly.”
In the case of J.S. Jadhav Vs. Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf and Ors.4, a case involving misappropriation of clients’ funds, it has been observed that "Advocacy is not a craft but a calling”, a profession whose hallmark is devotion to duty and warned that it must never be permitted to generate into “sorriest of trades”. Quoting from George Sharswood’s, the Court observed that 'a lawyer's character must be not only without a stain, but without suspicion'. For ready reference, paragraph nos. 8 and 9 are quoted herein below:
“8.Advocacy is not a craft but a calling; a profession wherein devotion to duty constitutes the hallmark. Sincerity of performance and earnestness of endeavour are the two wings that will bear aloft the advocate to the tower of success. Given these virtues other qualifications will follow of their own account. This is the reason why legal profession is regarded to be a noble one. But it cannot be allowed to become a sorriest of trades. It will be useful to quote what Sharaswood said of this profession:
“A lawyer, without the most sterling integrity, may shine for a while with meteoric splendour; but his light will soon go out in blackness of darkness. It is not in every man's power to rise to eminence by distinguished abilities. It is not in every man's power, with few exceptions, to attain respectability, competence, and usefulness. The temptations, which beset a young man in the outset of his professional life, especially if he is in absolute dependence upon business for his subsistence, are very great. The strictest principles of integrity and honor are his only safety. Let him begin by swerving from truth or fairness, in small particulars, he will find his character gone — whispered away, before he knows it. Such a one may not indeed be irrecoverably lost; but it will be years before he will be able to regain a firm foothold. There is no profession in which moral character is so soon fixed as in that of the law; there is none in which it is subjected to severer scrutiny by the public. It is well that it is so. The things we hold dearest on earth, our fortunes, reputations, domestic peace, the future of those dearest to us, nay, our liberty and life itself, we confide to the integrity of our legal counsellors and advocates. Their character must be not only without a stain, but without suspicion. From the very commencement of a lawyer's career, let him cultivate above all things, truth, simplicity and candor. They are cardinal virtues of a lawyer. Let him always seek to have a clear understanding of his object : be sure it is honest and right and then march directly to it. The covert, indirect and insidious way of doing anything, is always the wrong way. It gradually hardens the moral faculties, renders obtuse the perception of right and wrong in human actions, weighs everything in the balance of worldly policy, and ends most generally, in the practical adoption of the vile maxim, ‘that the end sanctifies the means’.”
Therefore an exacting standard is what is expected of an advocate.
9.This Court has taken the view in M. Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Chand [1985] 1DVT1003 as to how much in such a case professional misconduct has to be dealt with. In that case, the advocate committed forgery by attesting false affidavits which was considered to be a serious misconduct. This Court pointed out the duties of the members of the bar in the following passage :
“Legal profession is monopolistic in character and this monopoly itself inheres certain high traditions which its members are expected to upkeep and uphold. Members of the profession claimed that they are the leaders of thought and society. In the words of Justice Krishna Iyer in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar [(1975) 2 SCC 702, 718, para 52] the role of the members of the Bar can be appreciated. He said at page 718:
‘The Bar is not a private guild, like that of “barbers, butchers and candlestick-makers” but by bold contrast, a public institution committed to public justice and pro bono publico service. The grant of a monopoly licence to practice law is based on three assumptions : (1) There is a socially useful function for the lawyer to perform, (2) the lawyer is a professional person who will perform that function, and (3) his performance as a professional person is regulated by himself and more formally, by the profession as a whole. The central function that the legal profession must perform is nothing less than the administration of justice (‘The Practice of Law is a Public Utility’ — ‘The Lawyer, the Public and Professional Responsibility’ by F. Raymond Marks et al — Chicago American Bar Foundation, 1972 pp. 288-289). A glance at the functions of the Bar Council, and it will be apparent that a rainbow of public utility duties, including legal aid to the poor, is cast on these bodies in the national hope that the members of this monopoly will serve society and keep to canons of ethics befitting an honourable order. If pathological cases of member misbehaviour occur, the reputation and credibility of the Bar suffer a mayhem and who, but the Bar Council, is more concerned with and sensitive to this potential disrepute the few black sheep bring about? The official heads of the Bar, i.e. the Attorney-General and the Advocates-General too are distressed if a lawyer “stoops to conquer” by resort to soliciting, touting and other corrupt practices.'
If these are the high exceptions of what is described as a noble profession, its members must set an example of conduct worthy of emulation. If any of them falls from that high expectation, the punishment has to be commensurate with the degree and gravity of the misconduct.”
In the case of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa vs. Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula and others5, the following observations were made, which are being quoted herein below:
“11.The complainant further alleged that during the pendency of the suit, there was a sudden change of advocate representing Nusli Randella. One Ms. Sheetal D. Mishra, Advocate (respondent No. 3), filed a Vakalatnama on 6th June, 2005, on behalf of Nusli Randelia without obtaining a "no-objection" from the erstwhile advocate. Immediately upon the Vakalatnama being filed, Consent Terms were arrived at between M/s. Unique Construction and Nusli Randelia in the said suit, which act was without the knowledge of the erstwhile advocate on record, who was personally knowing Nusli Randelia. A consent decree was obtained without intimating Dara Sarkari or obtaining his signatures on the said Consent Terms.
12.As per the complainant, the respondent-advocate suppressed the material fact from the High Court that Dara Nariman Sarkari was a party to the suit and that he had not affixed his signatures on the Consent Terms. This deliberate omission on part of the Advocate representing M/s. Unique Construction, the plaintiff in the suit, tantamounted to concealment of material fact whereby the legal representatives of Dara Nariman Sarkari and Devji Parmar were defrauded and deprived of their rightful share in the suit property.
13.The complainant further averred that the Consent Terms had been prepared and filed in the Court without recognition of the rights of Dara Nariman Sarkari and M/s. Volga Enterprises in the suit property. He also apprehended that the consideration stipulated in the Consent Terms never passed on to Nusli Randelia, who might even have been impersonated before the Court, and his signatures may also be forged and fabricated.
50.It is alleged that the advocate on record, Shri N.P. Pandit certified the documents filed with the chamber summons as true copies. As per the complainant, the respondent-advocate identified the deponent of the affidavit filed with the chamber summons, and in doing so, she purportedly attested to the correctness of the contents of that affidavit and the chamber summons as being of her personal knowledge. As per the complainant, the statements set out in the affidavit were ultimately found to be false and, therefore, the respondent-advocate, by subscribing to the affidavit, had lent support to the false recitals and made a false deposition based on the contents of the affidavit.
51.The gravamen of the case, as set out in the complaint, was that the respondent-advocate could not have identified signatures of the deponent without assuming responsibility for the correctness of the statements contained in the body of the affidavit. As per the complainant, the deponent of the affidavit made incorrect statements and filed false documents, and thus, the advocate who identified the deponent by appending signatures on the same would be equally responsible for the offences of forgery, perjury, or cheating.”
In the case of Narendra Singh vs. Chhotey Singh and another6, the following observations were made, which are being quoted herein below:
2.A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against appellant Narendra Singh, Advocate on the roll of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on the complaint of Sh. Chhotey Singh and Shri Faqir Chand. Broadly stated, the allegation was that the appellant was annoyed with one Sh. Udaibir Singh Saxena, who was, at the relevant time, Assistant Registrar, Kanungo and actuated with a desire to implicate him in a criminal case, he forged an application by ante-dating it from July 6, 1968 to July 3, 1968. The application was in connection with acquisi-tion of Bhumidari rights. Presumably, this led to the filing of Civil Suit No. 478/68 by complainant Chhotey Singh against Smt. Sarbati Devi wife of his real brother and his father Khazan for cancellation of a gift deed alleged to have been executed by Khazan in favour of Smt. Sarbati Devi. The allegation was that taking advantage of the old age and mental infirmity of Khazan, appellant Narendra Singh, nephew of Khazan colluded with alleged donee in obtaining the gift deed. Further allegation was that the appellant had forged signature of Khazan in the Vakalatnama and consent application filed on behalf of Khazan in the suit. When Khazan realised that he was the victim of the machinations of the appellant, he filed an affidavit in the suit to which he was a party alleging therein that the appellant had himself forged the signatures on Vakalatnama and consent application. On receipt of this application, the learned Munsif before whom the suit was pending issued notice to the appellant to show cause why appropriate action be not taken against him. However, before any order could be made in the proceedings, Khazan died and it appears that the learned Munsif dropped the proceedings. Subsequently Chhotey Singh and Faqir Chand filed a complaint against the appellant before the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh which referred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee and that is how the matter came up before the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
3.Three charges were framed against the appellant. They may be extracted:
(1)Whether the Advocate concerned got the gift deed dated 10.7.68 executed by Khazan Singh in favour of Smt. Sharbati Devi, his daughter-in-law against his instructions? If so, is the Advocate concerned guilty of professional misconduct or other misconduct?
(2)Whether the Advocate concerned got a forged Vakalatnama and written statement through Sri Mahesh Chandra Mittal, Advocate filed on behalf of Khazan Singh in Suit No. 746 of 1968 of the Court of the Munsif, Bulandshahr? If so, is he guilty of professional misconduct or other misconduct?
(3)Whether the Advocate concerned filed an application said to be antedated as 3.7.68 on 6.7.68 and falsely got Sri Udai Bir Singh, Asstt. Registrar Kanungo arrested, challaned and prosecuted? If so, is he guilty of professional misconduct or any other conduct?
Evidence was led before the disciplinary committee. It may be mentioned that the appellant did not choose to enter the witness box to deny or contradict the allegations against him. This has some relevance because after this appeal was heard for some time, Miss Thomas, learned advocate for the appellant, sought an adjournment to file an affidavit of the appellant and one Shri Mahesh Chand Mittal who had appeared for Khazan in the suit filed by Chhotey Singh. The disciplinary committee observed that Chhotey Singh, one of the co-complainants had moved an application on October 16, 1970 requesting the committee to delete the name of Chhotey Singh from the array of co-complainants. Faqir Chand prosecuted the complaint. Chhotey Singh went to the extent of offering himself as a witness for the appellant. The disciplinary committee discarded the evidence of Chhotey Singh observing that earlier he had filed an affidavit dated September 10, 1970 supporting the allegation in the complaint and thereafter it was on October 16, 1970 that he moved application Exh. D-1 praying for deletion of his name from the array of co-complainants. Taking note of this fact, the disciplinary committee observed that evidence of Chhotey Singh cannot be relied upon in view of his earlier affidavit and in view of the fact that he is a near-relation of the appellant and does not appear to be a votary of truth. There was thus no evidence on behalf of the appellant explaining circumstances appearing in the evidence of the complainant and the documents placed on record. The disciplinary committee did not record finding in respect of each of three heads of charges separately. However in respect of third head of charge, the disciplinary committee observed that it has not been established to our satisfaction that the advocate concerned had got Shri Udai Bir Singh implicated in any criminal case as alleged by the complainant but his conduct as regard the gift deed executed by Shri Khazan Singh, his vakalatnama and written statement filed in the case instituted by Chhotey Singh for cancellation of the gift deed remain unexplained'. This statement was construed to mean that the appellant was exonerated in respect of the third head of charge and found guilty in respect of the first two heads of charges. The disciplinary committee imposed a punishment of suspension for a period of six months from practice as an advocate. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Bar Council of India and this appeal came up before the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India. The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India held that affidavit filed by Khazan Singh in the civil suit filed by Chhotey Singh was vague and does not conform to the requirement of the affidavit in the question of verification statement on personal knowledge and therefore it did not furnish reliable evidence against the appellant. The disciplinary committee was not inclined to attach any importance to the issue of the notice by the learned Munsif calling upon the appellant to show cause why appropriate action should not be taken against him. The affidavit of Chhotey Singh before the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council was rejected on the identical ground that the verification is not according to the rules of Bar Council of India prescribing the procedure to be followed by disciplinary committee of State Bar Council. It was further observed that it must be rejected on the short ground that the averments therein made are not shown to be to the personal knowledge of the deponent. On this ground, the finding of the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council on charges 1 and 2 was reversed.
Justice Krishnaiyer, J, in the case of Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs. M.V. Dabholker Etc. Etc7. held that the Bar is “not a private guild” but a public institution committed to public justice; and the license to practice carries a correlated duty of self-regulation; and the punishment for its breach must always be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
The conduct of the Advocate, primarily, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and thereafter the respondent no.6, filing a review application through a different lawyer with allegations, which now does not find support from the Expert’s report, has amounted to interference with the ‘administration of justice’ and this Court was even inclined to invoke its contempt jurisdiction, which can be done in cases where the act is scandalous, prejudicial to the proceedings or interferes with the administration of justice; but however, has applied self-restraint, considering the larger interest of the Bar and the Advocates who are having a substantial standing in the Bar. The judgments which has been referred above is to indicate the seriousness and the trouble which may be fall on an Advocate, if his conduct is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
However, by way of a word of caution, this Court indicates that filing of a false affidavit is an offence under Section 227 and 229 of B.N.S.
Apart from amounting to a willful and deliberate contempt, since the false affidavit can be construed to have been filed with an intent to deceive the Court and hence amounts to ‘interference with the administration of justice’ and pollutes the stream of justice, the action may lead to criminal prosecution, in a given case; but this Court is of the firm belief that all is not lost and still a sense of pride prevails, along with the trust of this Court, in the Members of the Bar, which is unalienable from this Court.
This court also takes into account the unconditional apology of Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate, who accepts the lapses on part of his office to the extent, which are procedural in nature but puts up firm stand against the allegations made in the affidavit filed along with the Review Application. This court, also takes note of the fact that Shri B.K. Singh Rajwanshi, Advocate who has filed the review application did not have any hesitation in filing the review application, with such serious allegations against his colleague, without even consulting with him or trying to find out the veracity of the allegations which was sought to be leveled by Shri Shiv Shanker Yadav (Singh) against an Advocate, whose reputation is not unknown in the Bar.
The Latin legal maxim ‘suppressio veri, expressio falsi’ which means “suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of a falsehood’. It dictates that hiding a material fact when you have a duty to speak is not just illegal but also is morally fraudulent, as explicitly telling a lie.
The petitioner, and on that count Shri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate also, is equally guilty of suppressing material facts, which were in their knowledge, as he was also a counsel who was representing the said client over a period of time and he cannot plead that he was not aware of the order dated 16.04.2016 and the dismissal of the writ petition against the same, which clearly observed that the elections held in the year 2009 was doubtful; and also the observations of this Court against Smt Malti Rai, DIOS, who herself had acknowledged that she had nothing to do with the elections held in the year 2009, clearly establishes that the elections held in the year 2009 were not undisputed; but still Shri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate has impressed upon the Court that the last undisputed elections were held in the year 2009.
As far as the confession given by Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate; and also in view of the explanation given by him, this Court does not find that the same was active concealment or an expression of a falsehood.
This Court has drawn a distinction between active concealment of fact and a statement in ignorance. The active concealment of fact means a truth is sought to be hidden on purpose to mislead the court; but however statement in ignorance means you share false information by mistake because you do not know the real truth.
Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate was a respondent counsel in the present writ petition and since the petitioner was willing to get the elections conducted, he may not have ventured into the fact, since the documents demonstrating the elections of the year 2009 to be doubtful, were never placed on record; and as such this Court has no hesitation in holding that there was an active concealment of fact on the part of Shri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate and his client, which lead to the interference with the administration of justice.
Although, on the facts, this Court’s intention is only to caution the Advocates’ community on proper attestation practice and strict scrutiny of the vakalatnama, which is being given to them; and as far as possible they must ensure that the petitioner signs the vakalatnama in front of them; or atleast and after verifying his identity through the documents or getting an affidavit, adhering to the procedure which has been prescribed under the Allahabad High Court Rules and getting the client’s photographs after duly entering Advocate on Roll, accepts the vakalatnama, so that the authenticity of the vakalatnama or the affidavit cannot be questioned by the client or any other third party at a later stage.
However this Court finds it necessary to impose a cost on the litigants i.e. the petitioner as well as the respondent no.6 (The Applicant), who had taken the liberty on either side to mislead this Court at the cost of the reputation of Advocates, which directly interferes in the administration of the justice and also corrodes the trust, which the public has in the Institution. The honour of the lawyer and purity of the profession are inseparable considerations and the manner in which the litigants have behaved in the present matter, this Court shall be failing in its duty, by not taking any deterrent measures.
However the matter, in the given facts, is not being referred to the Bar Council or any Agency for initiating criminal proceedings or even for that matter invoking the contempt jurisdiction, as the same has to be exercised sparingly; this Court adopts a self-restraint, but at the same time deems it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- each on the petitioner as well as the respondent no.6 (The Applicant) for abusing the process of the Courts, for the reasons stated herein above; and in case the cost is not deposited in the account of the High Court Legal Services Committee, within a period of one month from today and an affidavit of compliance is not filed by Shri Awadhesh Rai (Petitioner) and Shri Shiv Shankar Singh (Yadav) (Respondent No.6/Applicant), the Registrar General (Allahabad High Court) is directed to initiate contempt proceedings, immediately thereafter.
However, this Court finds that the entire controversy has arisen on account of the fact that there is no requirement under Chapter XXII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, for lodging the caveat, of a duly supporting by an affidavit; and as such the requirement and the procedure for lodging the caveat is open to abuse as noted in the present case.
For ready reference Chapter-XXII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is reproduced below:
“5.Lodging of Caveat :-(1) Where an application is expected to be made or has been made, any person claiming the right to oppose such an application, may, either personally or through his counsel, lodge a caveat in the Court in respect thereof.
(2)The caveator shall serve a notice of the caveat by registered post, acknowledgment due, on the person by whom the application is expected to be made and submit proof of service in Court.
(3)After the caveat has been lodged and the notice thereof has been served on the applicant's counsel, the applicant shall forthwith furnish to the caveator or his counsel, at the caveator's expense, with a copy of the application as well as any miscellaneous application made therein for interim relief.
(4)Where a caveat has been lodged and notice thereof has been served, the applicant shall when presenting the application in Court, furnish proof of having given prior notice in writing to the caveator's counsel of the date on which the application is proposed to be presented.
(5)Where a Caveat has been lodged under sub-rule (1), such Caveat shall not remain in force after expiry of 90 days from the date on which it was lodged. This, however, shall not preclude an applicant from filing a fresh Caveat.”
From the perusal of the aforesaid rule for lodging the caveat, it is evident that a mere application, without supporting affidavit, is sufficient for registering the caveat; and as such in case Vakalatnama is produced by a Pairokar, without there being any requirement of filing an affidavit in support of the application, Advocate filing the caveat application may be exposed to an uncomfortable situation, where the litigant denies his signature or in an extreme circumstance, the signature may vary from the original signature, though the same has been signed by the litigant himself.
The said possibility of variance, which has been identified in the present case, may also lead to a situation where the litigant may take a U-turn and completely denies his signature and even the forensic report, as in the present case, may suggest that the signature is not that of the applicant/litigant.
The said situation shall interfere in the administration of justice, also leading to a situation where the finality given to an adjudication, may be put at jeopardy, at the hands of an unscrupulous litigant and at the cost of the Advocates therein.
In view of the aforesaid, let a copy of this order may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on the administrative side, to consider amending Chapter XXII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, by incorporating a requirement for filing an affidavit of the applicant, along with the caveat application, at the time of lodging of caveat.
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, though the Court has given a finding that the signature in the vakalatnama filed along with caveat in question, does not match with the signatures of the applicant herein, but at the same time the sample signatures and the signature of the applicant in the bank records, which were provided to the handwriting expert, also did not match with the admitted signatures in the writ petitions summoned by this Court; but also for the reasons stated herein above that the last elections held in the year 2009 cannot be said to be undisputed, the Court is of the opinion that the order dated 05.05.2026 may be reviewed; and in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court, be also recalled, [though for different reasons, stated herein above] [emphasis supplied]; and the matter may be placed before the Court having jurisdiction for further adjudication.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present review application stands disposed off.