Non-advocates, including GPA holders, cannot be permitted to plead for principals in court as it amounts to practicing law, which is prohibited under Section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THERE are 8 persons shown in this writ petition as petitioners and are represented by their General Power of Attorney Holder, Sri Kamal mittal. They seek the issue of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent (Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad) deducting the value, at the rate of Rs. 81-17 ps. per quintal/bag for 2310 bags of Chanadal seized on 29-11-80 from Kachiguda Railway Station belonging to the petitioner firm is illegal and arbitrary and also for directing the respondent to pay the amount of Rs. 1. 87,502-70 ps. with interest at 18% p. a. , as per Section 6-C (II) of the Essential Commodities Act and also for payment of compensation.

( 2 ) AT the time of admission of the writ petition, the patitioners filed W. P. M. P. No. 15954/89 for allowing the G. P A to appear as party in person "to plead" the case. The application was ordered by the learned single Judge and then the writ petition was admitted on the same day. The respondent did not, however, have the opportunity of opposing the said application. Subsequently, when the matter camp up before me, a doubt arose in my mind as to the competency of the G. P. A. to plead the case of the petitioners who are all Ball Mill owners residing in various parts of North India. The same G. P. A. has been appearing frequently in certain other cases on behalf of various parties and pleading their cases. He was therefore directed to submit to the court the reasons as to why he contends that he should be permitted to plead for the principals. Thereafter, he produced certain letters from the principals treating the Power of Attorney executed in 1987 as still holding good and stating that the principals had also passed resolutions not to appoint any advocate in future in the aforesaid cases or any other litigation arising out of the same. He has filed a xerox copy of the power of attorney issued by one of the principals and the relevant portion reads thus :" (3) Sri Kamal Mittal. . . . . . . . . . . . Secunderabad. . . . . . . . . . is to act and manage all the legations of my firm pending ia various courts and any legal disputes arising out of regular business transactions of my firm and for the purpose of the aforesaid I hereby coufer upon the said Attorney the following power and authorities : (1) to appear on behalf of us and represent interest of my firm before any Central or State Government authorities, quasi Government authorities and local authorities or before any courts including high Courts and Supreme Court or any Tribunal or any arbitrator in connection with the firms interest . We further authorise our said Attorney to make applications. . . . . . verify plaints. . . . . . . . . . present affidavits. . . to prefer appeals and revisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . to engage any advocate or advocates. "

( 3 ) THE G. P. A. filed a declaration petition dated 14-12-1989 that in certain earlier cases, senior counsel of this court were appointed as advocates for the principals and in spite of that, the principals could not obtain necessary reliefs and this resulted in great hardship to them. It is stated that, therefore, the principals have decided not to appoint any other counsel for the further proceedings of the case. " It is stated that some in which the present G. P. A. has appeared, have gone in favour of the principals. The cetails of various writ petitions, suits, C. C. C. As. and L. P. As. in which the G. P. A. is appearing have been mentioned. Reliance is placed upon Sec. 119 CPC as also Order 4, Rule 5 CPC and Rule 32 of the civil Rules of Practice. It was however, pointed out to the G. P. A. that sec. 32 of the Advocates Act 1961 requires permission to be sought by any person other than the party or the advocate for appearing and pleading before the Court and that permission is given according to accepted and well-settled principles and not as of right. During the course of arguments in the case, the G. P. A has mainly su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document