Judicial remarks affecting a lawyer's reputation must be justified and made after providing an opportunity to respond, adhering to principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Jain, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Anil who is by profession an Advocate practicing primarily at Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Subordinate Courts.

2. By way of present petition being aggrieved by the conduct of Judicial Officer, MACT Pali i.e. respondent No.3 and being aggrieved by orders passed by learned MACT Pali on 31.07.2019 and 02.08.2019 marked as Annexure 6 and against the order passed by Registrar (Rules), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur marked as Annexure 10 dated 20.09.2019, the petitioner has sought the following prayers:-

"i. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the derogatory and scathing personal remarks about the conduct of the petitioner may kingly be ordered to be expunged from the order dated 02.08.2019 (Ann.6).

ii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the interpolations made in the order dated 31.07.2019 (Ann. 5) may kindly be directed to be deleted.

iii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 20.09.2019 (Ann.10) be quashed and set aside.

iv. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent no.3 be directed to pass the order in the Execution case No.63/2014 having finally heard the matter within one month or as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.

v. In the alternative, by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Execution case no. 63/2014 may please be transferred to MACT-I court at Jodhpur as respondent no.5 have their Third Party Hub at Jodhpur and further direct to decide the same within one month or as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.

vi. By an appropriate writ, order or direction initiate appropriate proceedings as deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court against the respondent no.3.

vii. Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deem just fit and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.

viii. Cost of this writ petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner."

3. The brief facts of the case are that one execution application was preferred before the MACT, Pali on 12.04.2014 against respondent no.5 i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rajkot for recovery of Rs. 94.35 lacs approx. The learned Tribunal passed attachment order on 09.07.2014 directing the concerned bank to pay the decretal amount. SLP was preferred by respondent no.5 before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was dismissed on 05.11.2015. In sequence of the same, an application dated 03.08.2016 was filed before learned Tribunal that even after deducting TDS, an amount to the tune of Rs. 20.60 lacs is still due from the insurer and therefore, the balance amount be directed to be paid. It was submitted that the beneficiaries are residents of Great Britain and in spite of rejection of SLP for a long period of time, they are not getting the claim amount awarded in their favour. The insurance company has taken several adjournments time and again and in spite of keeping the matter for final orders on 15.03.2018, no order was passed; rather on one count or the other, the matter was adjourned.

4. In the meantime, since the matter was delayed by the insurer-respondent on flimsy protest and the client of the petitioner who was non-resident claimant, pressurised the petitioner with the probes as to legal system and the delay in execution of the award/judgment which has attained finality in SLP, persuaded the petitioner to approach the Registrar (Admn.) Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and requested him to look into the matter as the learned Tribunal was taking a very casual and lethargic approach in the case. On 26.07.2019, the client of the petitioner Shri Nilesh D. Kotecha resident of UK made complaint before The High Commissioner of India at London and the copies were also given to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court and Minister for Law and Justice Department on 26.07.2019. The petitioner also submitted letter to Registrar (Admn.) in sequel to the personal meeting and reiterated the allegations.

5. On 01.08.2019, the petitioner along with Dr.