Gauhati High Court Imposes Cost On Two Advocates Who Signed Vakalatnama For Non-Existing Person, Recommends Enquiry
The Gauhati High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- each upon two advocates who had signed the Vakalatnama for a non-existing petitioner in a frivolous litigation which went on for more than 6 years.The single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed:“what is astonishing is that the judicial process has been successfully taken for a ride for the last more than six years...
The Gauhati High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- each upon two advocates who had signed the Vakalatnama for a non-existing petitioner in a frivolous litigation which went on for more than 6 years.
The single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed:
“what is astonishing is that the judicial process has been successfully taken for a ride for the last more than six years by instituting and continuing a case by a non-existing person. The role of the counsel who has appeared for the non-existing petitioner is absolutely important as the counsel had accepted the case of the petitioner by signing the Vakalatnama and taking all steps from time to time on behalf of the non-existing petitioner.”
The facts of the case reveal that one Ms. Beolin Kharbhih is the petitioner in the case who claimed to be a distant relative of one Sankar Prasad Nath, Ex-Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Assam.
A case was projected by the petitioner that the said Officer was entrusted with some sensitive cases involving politically influential persons of Assam and Meghalaya for which he was receiving threats and was ultimately killed in a hit and run case. The petitioner claimed that even the wife of Sankar Prasad Nath died under “mysterious circumstances” but no action was taken despite multiple representations and FIRs.
Hence, the present writ petition was filed in 2016 with as many as 26 party respondents, including a sitting judge of the Meghalaya High Court.
The Court had found that no specific allegation was made against the judge and had accordingly struck off his name. Meanwhile, investigation revealed that no person in the name of Ms. Beolin Kharbhih (petitioner) exists.
The status report filed by the Government Advocate stated that even the CID could not find any clue of the existence of the petitioner after it made investigation by examining the CCTV Footage, business premises with which the petitioner had claimed to be connected; newspaper publications were also made to trace her.
Accordingly, the Court had directed petitioner's counsel to secure personal appearance of the petitioner. The Advocate for the petitioner after taking further time on several occasions, submitted before the court on March 9, 2023 that the notice issued to the petitioner by registered post had returned back with endorsement that “no such person”.
Thus the Court remarked,
“It appears that the petition has been filed in a well planned manner from which it is apparent that there has been a conspiracy. The Vakalatnama which contains the signature of the petitioner is accepted by Shri HS Kalsi and Shri RS Sadiyal as Advocates...while the writ petition is dismissed, cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) Only is imposed upon each of the counsel who has signed the Vakalatnama for a non-existing petitioner.”
The court further recommended to the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland etc. to enquire the matter and take appropriate steps against the persons involved.
Case Title: Ms. Beolin Kharbhih v. The State of Assam & 25 Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 47
Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi