Back
2017 Supreme(HP) 334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.
Suman Singh Chandel - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others - Respondents
CWP No. 3154 of 2014
Decided On : 02-05-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Tim Saran
For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Mr. Prince Chauhan, Mr. Vijay Verma
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of counsel for a Municipal Council is within the council's right, and the petitioner had no legal right to continue as counsel.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Municipal Council's Counsel Appointment - 1996 Act 1, 1981 Act 2 - The court discussed the appointment of counsel for a Municipal Council and the petitioner's right to continue as counsel. The court found that the petitioner had no legal right to continue as counsel and that the appointment of a new counsel was within the council's right. The judgment referenced the 1996 Act 1 and 1981 Act 2 but found them inapplicable to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lawyer, sought a writ to quash the appointment of a new counsel for the Municipal Council and to continue as its lawyer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had no legal right to continue as counsel and that the appointment of a new counsel was within the council's right.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's right to continue as counsel for the Municipal Council and the council's authority to appoint a new counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had no legal right to continue as counsel and that the appointment of a new counsel was within the council's right.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and each party was left to bear their own costs.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.
The present writ petition has been maintained by the petitioner against the respondents praying therein for the following substantive relief:
“i. That a Writ of Certiorari quashing direction dated 23.5.2013 and 6.3.2014 (Annexure P-5 and P-6) and resolution dated 7.3.2014 (Annexure P-7) vide which the petitioner has been proposed to be removed in pursuance to U.O. letter issued by the office of Chief Minister and respondent No.5 has been proposed to be appointed as Standing Counsel of respondent No.3, may kindly be issued declaring the said directions and resolution unconstitutional, erroneous, unjust, illegal, malafide, arbitrary and colorable exercise of power in bad faith.
ii. That a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to continue as Lawyer/Legal Advisor of respondent No.3 to its satisfaction with all consequential benefits.
iii. That a writ and/or direction be issued to the respondent State not to usurp power in autonomous working of Local self bodies and standard norms should be adopted in engaging efficient counsel to defend the local self bodies being public bodies having stakes of public interest and public money.”
2. As per the petitioner, respondent No.3 has been notified as Municipal Council on 25.11.2009 and prior to that it was Notified Area Committee/Nagar Panchayat since 27.10.1970. Since the inception of Notified Area Committee/Nagar Panchayat Ghumarwin, till the year 2009, no permanent Advocate was engaged by the Nagar Panchayat. In the year 2009, Nagar Panchayat, invited applications for appointing lawyer for conducting cases. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement notice, petitioner applied for appointment as lawyer, said application was considered, vide resolution No.74/9 dated 9.6.1999. The decision of Nagar Panchayat, was conveyed to the Director Urban Development, Himachal Pradesh and the Director Nagar Panchayat permitted to engage the petitioner as Part Time Lawyer in Nagar Panchayat, Ghumarwin @ Rs.1000/- per month, vide its letter dated 20.6.2000. On 30.6.2000, Nagar Panchayat, Ghumarwin, issued letter of engagement of the petitioner as Legal Advisor/Part Time Lawyer w.e.f. 1.7.2000 till further orders. On 25.11.2009, Nagar Panchayat, Ghumarwin, has been notified as Municipal Council/Nagar Parishad and the petitioner is continuing as duly appointed Lawyer of the Municipal Council, Ghumarwin. Municipal Council, Ghumarwin, vide its letter dated 4.6.2009, had informed the Director Urban Development regarding engagement of the petitioner alongwith performance of the petitioner since 2000 to 2009. It has been specifically mentioned that not even single case has been lost by the Notified Area Committee/Municipal Council, Ghumarwin, since engagement of the petitioner as its lawyer. On 23.5.2013, Director Urban Development had issued a letter to the Executive Officer Municipal Council, Ghumarwin, regarding engagement of Standing Counsel for defending case of Municipal Council, Ghumarwin at Sub Judge Court, Ghumarwin. Respondent No.3 has again been conveyed from the Director Urban Development, vide its letter dated 6.3.2014, referring previous letter dated 23.5.2013, regarding approval of engagement of respondent No.5, as Standing Counsel for Municipal Council, Ghumarwin, to intimate whether Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate has been engaged as Standing Counsel for defending cases of Municipal Council, Ghumarwin or not alongwith reasons for not implementing orders well in time. On the basis of directions of Director of Urban in compliance of the approval of Hon’ble Chief Minister and under pressure of respondent No.4 to engage respondent No.5 as lawyer of Municipal Council Ghumarwin, respondent No.3, on 7.3.2014 has passed resolution No.163/28 to make recommendation for appointment of respondent No.5 to seek direction from the Director Urban Development to remove the petitioner. Respondent No.3/Municipal Council are democratic institution
