The petitioner is a Lawyer by profession; who is stated as aggrieved of Exhibit P1 notice issued by the 3rd respondent, whereby it has been stipulated that in all cases, the litigants and their counsel have to appear before the 3rd respondent for executing and attesting the vakalath and petitions or sanction to engage a lawyer. The above prescription is stated as in clear contravention of Rule 27 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Rule 32 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and also Rule 5(1) of the Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, which hence is sought to be set aside by this Court.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the first respondent as well. The issue involved being purely a ‘question of law’, no ‘question of fact’ is to be rebutted by filing any counter affidavit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the party concerned is at liberty to engage any lawyer of his/her choice, by executing a vakalath, which has to be done under the Civil/Criminal Rules or Practice. It is also a settled position of law that the ‘accepting lawyer’ is not supposed to attest t