IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.K. MISHRA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
Advocate’s Clerks Association, Jharkhand High Court – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 5156 of 2021
Decided On : 21-02-2023
Ultra Vires - Jharkhand Advocates’ Clerks Welfare Fund Act, 2018 - The court dismissed the petition challenging the provisions of the Act related to the stamp inscribed 'the Jharkhand Advocates’ Clerk Welfare Fund' and the contribution amount, holding that the provisions were not ultra vires and were in line with the direction given by the Division Bench in a previous judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the provisions of the Jharkhand Advocates’ Clerks Welfare Fund Act, 2018 related to the stamp inscribed 'the Jharkhand Advocates’ Clerk Welfare Fund' and the contribution amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions were not ultra vires and were in line with the direction given by the Division Bench in a previous judgment. The court also noted that the contribution amount was not disproportionate and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the provisions of the Jharkhand Advocates’ Clerks Welfare Fund Act, 2018 related to the stamp inscribed 'the Jharkhand Advocates’ Clerk Welfare Fund' and the contribution amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions were not ultra vires and were in line with the direction given by the Division Bench in a previous judgment. The court also found that the contribution amount was not disproportionate.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as without merit.
ORDER :
1. In this writ petition, the Advocate’s Clerks Association, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi has prayed for the following reliefs:
(b) Upon declaration of the relevant provisions of the Impugned Act/Rule as ultra vires, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare the subsequent actions of the respondents, if any, taken after implementation & execution of the concerned section/rule as bad, illegal and unreasonable.
2. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he would not press the prayer with respect to holding and declaring Section 4 of the Jharkhand Advocates’ Clerks Welfare Fund Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act” for brevity) as ultra vires. He further submits that he also does not want to press the prayer with respect to declaring Rule 2(e) and 2(f) of the Jharkhand Advocate’s Clerks Welfare Fund rules, 2020 as ultra vires. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provision of Section 12 of the Act is unreasonable, unfair and arbitrary and it is further submitted by him that it is contrary to the direction given by this Court.
3. For the purpose of better appreciation, we hereby take note of the exact words used by the legislature in Section 12 of the Act:
(1) There shall be printed or caused to the printed by the Bar Council in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, stamp inscribed “the Jharkhand Advocates’ Clerk Welfare Fund” each of the value of five rupees.
(2) Every Vakalatnama or Memorandum of appearance filed before any Court, authority of tribunal shall affixed with a stamp as specified in sub-section (1) in addition to the Court fee stamps, if any, and stamp to be affixed under any other Acts and no Vakalatnama or Memorandum of appearance shall be valid unless it is so stamped.
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to any Vakalatnama of Memorandum or appearance filed on behalf of the Central or State Government.
(3) The person or authority receiving Vakalatnama with such stamp shall forthwith effect cancellation of the stamp by punching out the same.
(4) The custody of the stamps printed under this section shall be with the Bar Council and, the supply and sale of stamps shall be in such manner as may be prescribed.”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner taking exception of the use of expressions “each of the value of five rupees” has submitted that fixation of five rupees stamp on each case is very low. It is disproportionate to the money that is being transferred to the ‘Advocates’ Association’ fund under the relevant Act. He would further submit that in an earlier application being W.P. (PIL) No. 3347 of 2014 as per the judgment dated 10.05.2017 a Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed that all Vakalatnamas filed in the High Court will bear a seal of the Advocate’s Clerks Association for which the said Association will charge any amount which will not be more than Rs.10/-per seal. Interpreting this direction, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that fixing of Rs.5/-is in the teeth of the order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment.
5. However, we are not inclined to agree with the contention raised by the leaned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as, the direction given by the Division Bench in the aforesaid Public Interest Litigation is that the seal shall not be more than Rs.10/-. Any enactment which is less than ten rupees will be within the scope and ambit of the order passed by
The court upheld the validity of the provisions of the Jharkhand Advocates’ Clerks Welfare Fund Act, 2018 related to the stamp inscribed 'the Jharkhand Advocates’ Clerk Welfare Fund' and the contribu....
Point of Law : Legal maxim “Expressio unius est exclusion alterius” meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and....
The legislative intent behind the age limit for eligibility to the Fund was to distinguish Advocates who joined the profession directly from law school without employment with terminal benefits, and ....
The state has a mandate to evaluate welfare schemes for Advocates' Clerks by considering them a distinct class contributing to the administration of justice, rendering their classification with other....
The charging of enrolment fees exceeding statutory limits is impermissible and violates fundamental rights under the Constitution.
scheme of the Advocates Act, 1961 as also the various Bar Council Rules and Regulations give primacy to the place of practice and not residence. Governmental policies are amenable to judicial review ....
Fees charged in excess of the statutory enrolment fee under the Advocates Act, 1961, are impermissible and unconstitutional.
The court affirmed the statutory enrollment fee limit set by the Advocates Act, ordering the refund of excess fees collected.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.