JUDGMENT :

This writ appeal is preferred by the petitioner No.39 for challenging the order dated 16th September 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge on I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2019. The learned Single Judge held that the applications were not maintainable as the applications were filed by an advocate representing the petitioner No.39 who filed vakalath without obtaining ‘No Objection’ from the advocate who was earlier representing the petitioner No.39 (the appellant).

2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that a General Power of Attorney was executed by the appellant constituting one Shri C.P. Tayal as his attorney. In the writ petitions filed before the learned Single Judge, the said constituted attorney acted on behalf of the appellant and it was the constituted attorney who had appointed an advocate to represent the appellant. The submission of the appellant is that the General Power of Attorney was terminated on 5th August 2019 and a public notice of the termination was published. The submission in short is that as the advocate who was earlier appointed to represent the appellant was appointed by the General Power of Attorney holder, another adv