1990 (2) TMI 314 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Chief Rationing Officer's action in deducting the value of seized Channadal.
2. Competency of a General Power of Attorney (G.P.A.) holder to plead in court on behalf of the petitioners.
3. Applicability of Sections 32 and 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 regarding non-lawyer representation in court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Chief Rationing Officer's Action:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent, Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. The officer had deducted the value at the rate of Rs. 81.17 per quintal/bag for 2310 bags of Channadal seized from Kachigua Railway Station. The petitioners also demanded the respondent to pay Rs. 1,87,502.70 with interest at 18% per annum as per Section 6-C(II) of the Essential Commodities Act, along with compensation.

2. Competency of a G.P.A. Holder to Plead in Court:
The petitioners, represented by their G.P.A. holder, Kamal Mittal, filed WPMP No. 15954/89 to allow the G.P.A. to appear as a party in person "to plead" the case. The application was initially ordered by a single judge without opposition from the respondent. However, doubts arose regarding the competency of the G.P.A. to plead the case, especially since the G.P.A. had frequently appeared in other cases on behalf of various parties. The G.P.A. presented letters from the principals indicating that the Power of Attorney executed in 1987 was still valid and that the principals had resolved not to appoint any advocate in future litigation. The G.P.A. claimed that the principals had no confidence in advocates and relied on Section 119, C.P.C., Order 4 Rule 5, C.P.C., and Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice.

3. Applicability of Sections 32 and 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961:
The court examined the provisions of Sections 32 and 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Section 33 restricts the right to practice in any court to enrolled advocates, while Section 32 allows the court to permit any person not enrolled as an advocate to appear in a particular case. The court noted that the G.P.A. was not a law graduate and that the principals were capable of securing legal services. The court cited various judgments and legal principles emphasizing that non-lawyers should not represent others in court to protect clients from incompetence and to maintain the integrity of the legal system. The court referred to the Full Bench decision in Thaamammal v. Kuppuswami Naidu, which distinguished between the rights to "appear," "plead," and "practice." The court concluded that the G.P.A.'s acts amounted to "practicing" the profession of law, which is prohibited under Section 33 of the Advocates Act.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the WPMP, ruling that no special grounds warranted granting permission under Section 32 of the Advocates Act. The principals were given two months to appoint an advocate for conducting the case. The petition was dismissed.