Prayagraj, 01 June: The Allahabad High Court has asked the state government to make a panel of qualified advocates, so that the authorities, corporations do not have to keep separate advocates.
The court expressed displeasure that apart from one dozen Additional Advocate General and one and a half dozen Chief Permanent Advocates, there is a huge team of Additional Chief Permanent Advocates, Permanent Advocates, Additional Government Advocates and litigants. There is a panel of state law officers. Still, the development authorities, municipal corporations and other corporations have to keep separate advocates.
The court said that some Additional Advocate General and Chief Standing Advocate are arguing on behalf of the government as well as the authorities, corporations and taking fees from both the sides. And in the important matters of the government, no one would stand by the side of the government.
The court asked how a lawyer can charge double fees. Recovery should be made from the public prosecutor who has taken double fee. After all, the money is spent by the tax payer only. To do so is malpractice for advocacy.
The court has directed the Chief Secretary of the state to prepare a draft for improving the functioning of public prosecutors and present it in the cabinet for appropriate action. Asked the Chief Secretary to bring to the notice of the cabinet what is the need of a dozen Additional Advocates General and one and a half dozen Chief Permanent Advocates. While a huge team of state law officers are present to defend the government in large numbers.
The court has directed the Chief Secretary to send the progress report to the Registrar General in two months. This order has been given by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal on a contempt petition filed by the director of Ishan International Educational Society.
However, the court dismissed the contempt petition as meaningless due to compliance of the order.
The petition was filed against several officials including Principal Secretary Mukul Singhal and Ghaziabad Development Authority. The court had directed to declare the award of land acquisition compensation at the market rate. Compliance with the order was delayed due to litigation till the Supreme Court. But the court said that in view of the intention of disobeying the order, action is taken. In this case no case of willful contempt of tax was found.
The court has reacted sharply to the special secretary giving the right to take notice of the contempt case to two senior advocates despite not having legal powers.
The court said that the Special Secretary had sent Additional Advocate General M.C. Chaturvedi and Kuldeep Pati Tripathi authorized Prayagraj and Lucknow respectively to take notice of the contempt case and allowed to seek cooperation from the state law officers.
The court said that the court issues the contempt notice directly to the contempt. There is no provision to serve and allot notice to the Public Prosecutor.
The court said that the office of the Chief Standing Counsel is there. He has the right to take notice of civil cases. The Government Advocate’s Office has the right to take notice of the criminal case. No senior advocate can take notice. The State Law Officer does not have the right to take notice. This right is only with the Chief Permanent Advocate and Government Advocate’s office.
The court has directed the Chief Secretary to place this matter before the cabinet for appropriate action.
It is known that the trial of the case has been completed. Meanwhile, the Additional Advocate General, appearing for the state government, requested the court to record his presence on behalf of the authority. Another senior advocate Ravi Kant, appearing for the authority, objected and said that the counsel appearing for the government does not have the right to appear for the authority at the same time.
The court was told that in the Allahabad High Court, including Lucknow, a dozen Additional Advocates General, one and a half dozen Chief Permanent Advocates, dozens of Additional Chief Permanent Advocates, Permanent Advocates and litigants are bound.
The court said that it is often seen that the Additional Advocate General and Chief Standing Advocate appear on behalf of the state government as well as the authorities, corporations. There is no restriction by law. But fee bills are being taken from both the places.
The court said that in important matters no one comes from the side of the government. Their interest remains in arguing on behalf of the authority corporation whereas cooperation from the state is expected.
The court said that if the authority has to appear on behalf of the corporation, then what is the need of a huge panel. The financial burden on the government only increases. Government lawyers are given only the tax payer’s money.
The court said that government bodies also hire lawyers from outsourcing. A huge amount of government money is spent on them too.
The court hoped that the government would maintain a balance and put in place a panel of qualified advocates so that institutions do not have to hire lawyers from outsourcing other than public prosecutors. The hiring of outside lawyers by making panel lawyers by the authorities and municipal corporations shows that there is a shortage of qualified lawyers in the government lawyers.
