AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Parvatha Rao, J.—The six petitioners in this Writ Petition seek a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction "declaring the action of the third respondent (the Munsif Magistrate at Macherla in Guntur District) as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the third respondent to allow the petitioners into the Munsif Magistrate Court, Macherla, Guntur District for discharging their duties as Advocates'' clerks", etc.
The first petitioner has given the affidavit on behalf of himself and the other five petitioners in support of this Writ Petition. He states that himself and the other petitioners have been working as Advocates'' clerks with their respective Advocates in the Munsif Magistrate Court at Macherla since 1987 onwards and that they had been discharging their duties without any adverse remarks from the Judicial Officers, Court staff and Advocates as well as from the litigant public. He states that he is the seniormost Advocate''s clerk among the petitioners and that he had been guiding the junior clerks "in the farewell parties conducted by the Bar Association at the time of their transfer". He states that after the third respondent was posted as Munsif Magistrate at Macherla, (about an year back) "from the date of his taking charge as Munsif Magistrate, he is harassing not only Court staff, but also Advocates for one and the other reasons best known to him only". He then states as follows:
"It is submitted that in the Macherla Bar Association most of the Advocates are youngsters. Only six persons are working as Advocates'' Clerks in the Court, who are not registered clerks, from 1986 till to-day, no Presiding Officer has insisted for the identification cards for the Advocate clerks except the present Magistrate i.e. R-3. In the last week of April, 1996 on one day when the call work is going on, the respondent No. 3 directed the petitioners in the open Court suddenly as "all the Advocate clerks are hereby directed to go out from my Court hall immediately as such all the petitioners are not registered Advocate clerks." Then all the petitioners who are in the court hall come out from the Court hall and afterwards came to know about the procedure of identification cards as Advocate Clerks with their Advocates, and also came to know that the Hon''ble District Judge, Guntur issued proceedings on 22-4-1996 directing all the Judicial Officers in Guntur District not to allow any unregistered Advocate clerks to the sections and Courts only but not entering into the public Court. But immediately the same was brought to the notice of our advocates, for that effect our Advocates issued a certificate showing that we have been working as Advocate Clerks in their offices, for identification. After receiving the same we approached the 3rd respondent requesting him to allow us to enter into the Courts to discharge our duties as Advocate Clerks, but in vain. After knowing them, the R-3 has threatened in his chamber in the presence of police officers, I would initiate contempt proceedings against the Advocates who are issuing the service certificates".
He then complains that when they approached the office of the District Court, Guntur, they were informed by the concerned authorities that the registration of Advocate clerks would be only in the month of November. He states that, thereafter, the President and the Secretary of the Bar Association, Macherla approached the third respondent and requested him to allow them into the Court hall to assist the Advocates and that the third respondent refused to allow them to assist the Advocates in the public Court. They also alleged that the third respondent bluntly refused to issue identity cards to them because he developed grudge against Advocates'' Clerks "because some of the Advocate clerks filed a petition against him in the previous station before the concerned District Judge". In the circumstances, they approached this Court by way of the present Writ petition.
We directed notice before admission on 21-8-1996. Thereafter, the second and third respondents filed their counters. In the counter affidavit dated 3-9-1996, the second respondent referred to the "Rules regarding Pleaders'' Clerks in Mufassal, Civil and Criminal Courts"(''Pleaders'' Clerks Rules for short) made by the High Court in High Court proceedings Dis.No.799 of 1936 and amended by Dis. Nos. 648 of 1938 and Dis.No.558 of 1939, published in Volume I of the Second Edition (revised upto the end of March, 1940) of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders published by the Government of Madras and the instructions of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its Circular ROC.No.2198/SO/88 dated 20-4-1989. Rule 6 of the Pleaders'' Clerks Rules provides that "no clerk employed by a pleader shall as such be allowed access to any of the Courts of the district, or any of the offices attached thereto, unless he is for the time being a recognised clerk". ''Recognised clerks under the Pleaders'' Clerks Rules mean a clerk employed by a pleader and permitted as such to have access to the Courts in which his employer is authorised to practise and to the offices attached thereto. Rule 4 of the Pleaders'' Clerks Rules provides for the issuance of identity cards and procedure to be followed for obtaining identity cards by the Pleaders'' clerks.
In view of the High Court Circular dated 20-4-1989, it is obvious that the procedure under the Rules is being followed and the system of identity cards has also been introduced. This Circular was issued on a representation dated 29-11-1988 of the Joint Secretary of the State Advocate''s Clerks Federation, (A.P.), Guntur, requesting the High Court to introduce the system of issuing identity cards to the registered clerks. The procedure of enrolment of Advocate clerks in the concerned Subordinate Courts for official duties was explained and it was also made clear that "every registered Advocate clerk should possess for official purposes an identity card containing a passport size photo of the individual duly certified by the District Judge of the concerned District Courts." It was also stated in that Circular that the Sheristadar of the concerned District Courts should receive the applications for the registration of Advocate clerks and get them duly certified by the District Judge, and that the original card should be given to the Advocate clerk, which should be duly certified by the District Judge of the concerned Courts, and that the Office copy thereof would be retained in the District Court. A proforma of the application to be submitted by the Advocate for enrolment of Advocate''s Clerk with passport size photograph is also furnished along with the Circular, and the procedure to be followed was informed to the Joint Secretary of the State Advocate''s Clerks Federation (A.P.), Guntur. It is, therefore, clear that unless a clerk appointed by an Advocate is permitted to have access to the Courts by making himself recognised clerk and obtaining an identity card, he will not be allowed to act on behalf of the Advocate who employs him. It cannot be disputed that the access to the offices of the Courts can be controlled by the Judicial Officers, subject to the superintendence of the High Court. This has not been questioned by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.K.G. Kannabhiran, appearing for him.
In view of the categorical statement by the first petitioner in his affidavit in support of the Writ Petition that none of the petitioners registered themselves as recognised clerks and in view of the fact that they did not possess any identity cards, the third respondent cannot be faulted for objecting to their entry into the office of his Court as representing any Advocates or their clients. They have also no right to represent any Advocate or any party.
In his counter affidavit, the second respondent has stated that the second, third and sixth petitioners registered themselves as clerks for the year 1995 as per proceedings in Dis.No.4317, dated 27-4-1995 and that none of the petitioners registered themselves as clerks for the year 1996. He states that even petitioners 2,3 and 6 did not renew themselves as recognised clerks in time for the year 1996 and that only in the month of June, 1996, they came forward with their applications before the third respondent and that the third respondent returned their applications as they were not filed in time i.e. in the month of November, 1995, and that thereafter they submitted their applications to the second respondent on 2-7-1996 only. It is stated before us that subsequently they were also registered as recognised clerks and were issued identity cards. It is also brought to our notice now that the first petitioner put in an application for registering himself as recognised clerk on 28-9-1996 and that the fifth petitioner made a similar application on 10-10-1996, i.e. after the filing of the present Writ Petition on 1-8-1996. We are also informed that the fourth petitioner had not put in any application till October, 1996. The second respondent denied that any of the petitioners approached him for registering themselves as Advocates'' clerks prior to the presentation of the present Writ Petition.
The third respondent in his affidavit dated 27-9-1996 has denied the allegations made by the first petitioner against him. He states that pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 26-4-1996, he directed that only the recognised clerks as mentioned in the said proceedings would be permitted to enter the sections and represent Advocates and that pursuant to the said proceedings, he did not permit the petitioners and other clerks to represent to the Court/Presiding Officer on behalf of the Advocates and gave suitable instructions in that regard to the Court staff also. He denied that he bore any grudge or ill will against the petitioners or other Advocate clerks in general. He further states as follows:
"....I state that petitioners 2,3 and 6 filed applications for renewal before the Head Clerk during June, 1996 and I directed them that they should produce their old identity card originally issued to them and returned the said applications. Again the same petitioners filed the said applications with the Head Clerk requesting that the applications be forwarded to the District Judge. However, I returned the same as the objections earlier made were not complied and directed that the applications for renewal be made during November, 1996. Later the petitioners have not made any application or representation to me."
It is obvious that the first petitioner had falsely stated in his affidavit in support of the Writ Petition that none of the petitioners were registered clerks from 1986 till to-day. In his reply dated 11-10-1996 he states that inadvertently he "could not bring and explain the facts that the petitioners 2, 3 and 6 directly filed an application before the second respondent on 2-7-1996 for issue of identity cards to them" since he had no knowledge about the same. But he had stated in his original affidavit that he was the senior most Advocate clerk among the petitioners and that he was guiding the junior clerks. He had also stated that only in the last week of April, 1996, the petitioners "came to know about the procedure of identification cards as Advocate Clerks with their Advocates and also came to know that the Hon''ble District Judge, Guntur issued proceedings on 22-4-1996 directing all the Judicial Officers in Guntur District not to allow any unregistered Advocate clerks to the sections and the Courts. ...". It is obvious from this that he has been misguiding the other petitioners and encouraging them to assume a course of confrontation and defiance. Otherwise, there is no explanation for their approaching the third respondent and insisting that they should be allowed to enter into the Courts to discharge their duties as Advocate clerks without registering themselves as recognised clerks and obtaining identity cards as required of them. The petitioner had also made allegations against the third respondent which are not in any way materially connected with the issue involved in the Writ Petition, obviously with a view to prejudice the mind of this Court by projecting that he is in the habit of harassing every one including Advocates and the Court staff.
In view of the reckless allegations made against the third respondent i.e. the learned District Munsif at Macherla and the further averment that none of the petitioners registered themselves as recognised clerks ever since the Munsif Magistrate Court was established at Macherla, in our order dated 11-10-1996, we directed the second respondent "not to issue proceedings recognising petitioners 1,4 and 5 as Advocate clerks pending further orders" and that if proceedings were already issued, their registration should be kept in abeyance until further orders. In view of the attitude displayed by the first petitioner in his affidavit in support of the Writ Petition, we asked Mr. K.G. Kannabhiran as to whether any proceedings should be initiated against him for contempt. The learned Counsel expressed that it would meet the ends of justice if his registration as Advocate clerk is kept in abeyance for a period of six months.
In the result, we hold that the petitioners have no right to disturb the proceedings of the learned Munsif Magistrate''s Court or interfere with the working of the Court as they please and that they have to conduct themselves in an orderly manner befitting the dignity of the Court. We also hold that they have to register themselves as recognised clerks and obtain identity cards and that without doing so, they cannot act in any manner on behalf of any Advocate who has employed them. They have to follow the procedure for registering themselves as clerks and for obtaining identity cards. They cannot have a Writ of Mandamus as prayed for by them, because, in our view, they cannot discharge their duties as Advocates'' clerks so far as Courts and offices of the Courts are concerned without registering themselves as recognised clerks and without obtaining identity cards. We also direct the second respondent not to register the first petitioner as recognised clerk and not to issue any identity card to him for a period of six months from to-day.
Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 500/-.