HC not for entertaining cases filed by “petition monger”
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
the hindu
The Madras High Court Bench here has restrained all courts in the State, including its own Registry, from permitting a “petition monger” to file cases on behalf of other litigants and demand the right to argue them despite not being an advocate.
Dismissing a batch of cases listed for deciding their maintainability, Justice P.N. Prakash said that P. Balasubramaniyan of Karur was not a person of pre-eminence and therefore he could not be allowed to represent other litigants under Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The judge said that though Section 32 empowers courts to permit even non advocates to represent litigants, the Criminal Rules of Practice as well as a couple of Supreme Court rulings categorically state that such privilege should be granted only to a person of pre-eminence.
In so far as Mr. Balasubramaniyan was concerned, the judge pointed out that he was a law graduate who had been dismissed from service by Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (TNPL) in 2005 for certain misconduct. He was also accused of abetting his wife to commit suicide in 2008.
He had been an under trial prisoner between 2009 and 2014 and during that period he had been booked in another case on charges of abusing prison guards when they escorted him to the High Court for arguing a writ petition filed by him, challenging his dismissal from service. After his acquittal from the abetment to suicide case in 2014, he filed a couple of cases in the High Court seeking “imaginary and fancy relief” against a High Court judge, a few Sessions Judges and Public Prosecutors after including them by name in his cases. Those cases were dismissed in December last.
All this shows that “it has become a chronic habit for him to file frivolous petitions arraying judicial officers by name as respondents,” Mr. Justice Prakash said and added that people of his ilk should not be allowed to eat into the precious judicial time of the court. He stated that the present batch of cases had also been filed seeking a series of relief in favour of one S. Victor William who had been suspended from the post of Junior Assistant in Thanjavur Government Medical College Hospital and prosecuted for reportedly misappropriating Rs.20.84 lakh.
“It has become a chronic habit for him to file frivolous petitions arraying judicial officers as respondents”
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
the hindu
The Madras High Court Bench here has restrained all courts in the State, including its own Registry, from permitting a “petition monger” to file cases on behalf of other litigants and demand the right to argue them despite not being an advocate.
Dismissing a batch of cases listed for deciding their maintainability, Justice P.N. Prakash said that P. Balasubramaniyan of Karur was not a person of pre-eminence and therefore he could not be allowed to represent other litigants under Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The judge said that though Section 32 empowers courts to permit even non advocates to represent litigants, the Criminal Rules of Practice as well as a couple of Supreme Court rulings categorically state that such privilege should be granted only to a person of pre-eminence.
In so far as Mr. Balasubramaniyan was concerned, the judge pointed out that he was a law graduate who had been dismissed from service by Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (TNPL) in 2005 for certain misconduct. He was also accused of abetting his wife to commit suicide in 2008.
He had been an under trial prisoner between 2009 and 2014 and during that period he had been booked in another case on charges of abusing prison guards when they escorted him to the High Court for arguing a writ petition filed by him, challenging his dismissal from service. After his acquittal from the abetment to suicide case in 2014, he filed a couple of cases in the High Court seeking “imaginary and fancy relief” against a High Court judge, a few Sessions Judges and Public Prosecutors after including them by name in his cases. Those cases were dismissed in December last.
All this shows that “it has become a chronic habit for him to file frivolous petitions arraying judicial officers by name as respondents,” Mr. Justice Prakash said and added that people of his ilk should not be allowed to eat into the precious judicial time of the court. He stated that the present batch of cases had also been filed seeking a series of relief in favour of one S. Victor William who had been suspended from the post of Junior Assistant in Thanjavur Government Medical College Hospital and prosecuted for reportedly misappropriating Rs.20.84 lakh.
“It has become a chronic habit for him to file frivolous petitions arraying judicial officers as respondents”
No comments:
Post a Comment