A party-in-person must use their own registered Electronic Filing account and cannot utilize another person's credentials to file a case, violating E-Filing Rules.

ORDER :

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

This writ petition is filed by Smt. Shahada T.K. as party-in-person. Hence she alone could be the Electronic-Filer (E-Filer). Since the name of another person - Sri. Asif Azad, was shown as having filed the case, on behalf of the petitioner, the Registry noted certain defects. Though the defects noted were attempted to be rectified since the E-Filer was not the petitioner, the following defect remained:

“While scrutiny of this W.P.Crl., it was noted that petitioner along with another party in person has moved this file. When a defect was noted, cause-title was corrected. But, name of the petitioner is not substituted so far, in docket and title of memorandum after cause-title.

Defect regarding wrong entry of party-in-person verification.

Details in the metadata also not cured”

2. When the above defect was made known to the petitioner, the following reply was given:

“1. There is no edit option for the docket and the cause tile but I change it in the index, As this petition have high red alert emergency as only 9 days remaining for the life of an innocent person who's passport has been stolen, so this writ petition is a connection to that, so post it as unnumbered, as I dont have time to waste with IT department.

4. I cannot change that as I run an internet company, I know only one thing that only the IT department can cure that defect, but due to a life emergency I want this case to be posted before the honourable court as unnumbered'.”

3. Considering the content and manner of reply, the Registry posted the case before this Bench as a defect without numbering the writ petition.

4. In this context, it needs to be mentioned that, though the writ petition was filed by a party-in-person, it was filed using the registered dashboard of another person and hence the defect when noted, was returned to the dashboard of the person who filed the writ petition. After rectification of the defects, it can thereafter be uploaded only through the dashboard of the person who had filed it originally. In the instant case, though the petitioner is Smt.Shahada T.K, the writ petition was filed using the dashboard of a person by the name of Sri. Asif Azad. Hence when the defects were cured, it was resubmitted through the same dashboard, i.e. that of a person other than the petitioner. As the petitioner and the E-Filer were different and since the E-Filer was not an Advocate or the party-in-person, the defect subsisted.

5. When the case came up in the defect list, Smt. Shahada T.K, the petitioner, appeared online. However, it was noticed that she had accessed the court proceedings through the dashboard of Sri. Asif Azad, who was concededly not an Advocate. When this Court enquired about it, Sri. Asif Azad appeared along with the petitioner and on the court's query regarding the relation between the petitioner and Sri.Asif Azad, it was replied in the negative.

6. Petitioner had filed the writ petition as a party-in-person and she cannot be represented by any person other than an Advocate or a person duly permitted by the Court. Petitioner has not appointed any Advocate to appear on her behalf. She has also not sought permission and has not been given permission to be represented by another person. Therefore petitioner alone can appear before the Court and cannot be represented by any third party.

7. Since no permission was granted to the petitioner to be represented by any other person, she alone could have appeared online on her behalf. However, Sri. Asif Azad appeared online and started insisting that this Court must avoid the case. When the Court informed that there was no reason to avoid the case, he alleged that this Court had imposed costs on him in some other case and that he has already file