Justice Can't Be Bogged Down, Process For Conferring Senior Designation Needs A Relook: Telangana HC As Senior Advocate Addresses It In 'High Pitch'

Referring to his previous judgement, Justice Vinod noted that despite being cautioned by the Court, it is disconcerting to note that such practice was repeated again.

“While noting so, this Court had cautioned that such practices would sow discord and ruin the harmony with the bench. However, it is disconcerting to note that such conduct is being repeated once again, that too by a Counsel who was conferred with a Senior Designation only recently.”

Relying on O.P. Sharma & Ors. v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the Bench noted that Senior Designation is not awarded to an Advocate merely for his expertise in the field but also considering the professional ethic; and ordered that there is a need to look into the existing process of conferring a Senior Designation.

“It goes without saying that a designated Senior Counsel is expected to lead the younger members of the bar by example. However, it appears that we are now at the cusp of an age where the Senior officers of this Court are setting precedent that the wheels of justice can be bogged down by misbehavior. Therefore, the incident before this Court sends out a message that there is an alarming need to relook at the existing process for conferring a Senior Designation.”

The order was passed in a Writ Petition filed by a concerned citizen bringing to the notice of the Court alleged illegal constructions that were being taken up without prior building permissions on part of his land. It was stated that by way of an RTI application, he came to know that the construction, a commercial establishment (supermarket) was raised without mandatory permission.

The Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation contended that action was taken on the complaint submitted by the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued and subsequently a speaking order was also passed asking the illegal construction to be taken down.

The senior Counsel, representing the party who is alleged to have made the illegal construction on the other hand contended that the petitioner had no locus to file the present writ and prayed the matter be adjourned for counter.

The order then says that while the bench was addressing the standing counsel for the corporation in a lighter vein, the senior counsel in a high-pitched manner asked the Court not to attribute sarcasm to the issue.

“Further, when this Court was pointing out to the learned Standing Counsel in a lighter vein that it appears that the authorities would wake up to take action only when a citizen approaches this Court, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 & 5, addressing the Court in a high pitched tone had questioned this Court as to why it is attributing sarcasm to the issue.”

The Court, criticising the manner of representation noted that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self-Certification System, 2020 empower and rather encourages any citizen to make a complaint with regard to unauthorized and illegal construction. Further that a individual need not be an affected party to raise the issue of illegal construction.

“Therefore, the claim of the unofficial respondents of the petitioner not having locus to maintain the present petition is liable to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected.”

It was also noted that to curb the menace of illegal construction, swift action is required.

Thus, the official respondents were directed to enforce the speaking order. The writ stood disposed.

Case no.: WRIT PETITION No.7132 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order