ORDER

1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. M/s. S. Rout and Associates have filed the Vakalatnama without obtaining the consent from the previous Advocate. The present Advocate, M/s. S. Rout and Associates submit that since the matter was from the jail petition, he had no occasion to get the 'No Objection Certificate' (in short 'NOC') from the previous Advocate.

3. The Registry should not have accepted the Vakalatnama without 'NOC' from the previous Advocate or without the letter of consent from the concerned petitioner. It is very often seen that without obtaining the consent from the previous Advocate, another Advocate files Vakalatnama which marks a disturbing trend. When the matter is taken on board, the appearance of so many Advocates' create a chaotic situation.

4. The Registry need to be more vigilant while accepting Vakalatnama seeking change of Advocates. They should allow such changes only when there is consent from the previous Advocate or a letter of consent from the client, so that unintended chaotic situation can be avoided.

5. In fact, the unhealthy practice of change of Advocate without 'NOC' from the previous Advocate is contrary to law and legal