Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Space Allotted To Senior Advocates Council At Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Supreme Court on Monday (September 2) ordered status quo on the allotment of space for the Senior Advocates Council at the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the interim order while issuing notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the Senior Advocates Council challenging the High Court's judgment which resulted in the cancellation of the allotment of space to them.
"Status quo re: possession of premises occupied by the petitioner – Senior Advocates Council, shall be maintained till further orders," the Court ordered. The notice is returnable on September 27.
The High Court's judgment came on a petition filed by a lawyer challenging the allotment of spaces for two bar associations in the High Court premises. By judgment delivered on May 3, 2024, the High Court cancelled the allotment of space to "Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association", when another association, the "Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association", is already existing.
The Senior Advocates Council was sharing a portion of the space allotted to High Court Advocates Bar Association.
Before the Supreme Court, the Senior Advocates Council contended that they were not impleaded as a party in the writ petition in the High Court and hence the impugned order was passed without hearing them. Senior Advocate Ravindra Shrivastav appeared for the petitioner while Senior Advocate Archana Pathak Dave represented the respondents.
Order Of The High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Vivek Agarwal and Avanindra Kumar Singh had set aside the order of the Registrar General allotting premises in the High Court complex to Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association (New Bar Association). The Court also observed that the new bar association could not enjoy the patronage of the High Court as a separate distinct legal entity from the already existing 'Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association'.
The writ petition filed by practising lawyer Amit Patel mainly contended that the allotment of premises to 'Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association' had no legal basis as its application for affiliation/recognition was rejected by the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. Additionally, in light of the Top Court's decision in Supreme Court Bar Association versus B.D.Kaushik (2011), only one Bar Association can be permitted to be annexed with the High Court which was already in existence- Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association.
The petitioner had further contended that the allotment of space of 20,000 to 22,000 square feet in front of the Copying Section of the High Court was done without any public notice or advertisement, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress versus State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 5 SCC 29.
The High Court noted that the allotment of the premises by the former Chief Justices of the Court without considering applications of interested parties was done in error by not following due procedure.
The SLP has been filed with the assistance of AOR Sarvam Ritam Khare.
Case Details: SENIOR ADVOCATES COUNCIL Versus AMIT PATEL AND ORS Diary No. 24091-2024 \