1. This application is made by the petitioners in the writ petition praying for grant of permission to allow their Constituted Attorney Mr. Ibrahim Aabdul Kader Mansuri to appear, act, plead and represent them in the writ petition. On 31 August 2018 when the writ petition appeared before a Division Bench of this Court, the said Mr. Ibrahim Aabdul Kader Mansuri, the Constituted Attorney of the petitioners tried to plead on behalf of the petitioners. At that time, as noted in the order dated 31 August 2018, the attention of the Constituted Attorney was invited to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Varsha V. Maheshwari v. Bhushan Steel Ltd. 2011 (2) Bom. C.R. 507 wherein it was held that the Constituted Attorney of a party cannot as a matter of right address the Court unless specifically permitted by the Court. Accordingly, the present application is taken out by the petitioners for grant of permission to allow the said Constituted Attorney to plead on their behalf.
2. We have heard the Constituted Attorney in support of his application. He relies upon three decisions. The first is the Judgment and Order dated 26 February 2010 in Notice of Motion No. 83 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 2071 of 2008 (Anant Chimanlal Bhatt v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay). He invited our attention to what is held in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the said judgment and order. Secondly, he relies upon the order dated 29 November 2016 passed by the Apex Court in a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 15334 of 2016 (Veena Jaswant Shah v. Rajendra Vinayak Mehta). Thirdly, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd. (2005) 2 SCC 217 , AIR 2005 SC 439. His submission is that in the case of Veena Jaswant Shah v. Rajendra Vinayak Mehta, the Apex Court has permitted the Constituted Attorney to plead.
3. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. In the case of Varsha A. Maheshwari (Supra), as noted in first paragraph of the judgment, the husband of the petitioner before this Court who was holding her power of attorney claimed to be heard on her behalf. The power of attorney holder contended that the power of attorney which empowers him to act and appear on behalf of his wife empowered him to argue the case on behalf of his wife. Various decisions were considered by the Division Bench including the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in the case of Janaki V. Bhojwani (supra). The Division Bench considered various provisions of law including Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
4. We have perused the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Janki Bhojwani (supra). The issue considered by the Apex Court was whether a holder of Power of Attorney of a party is empowered to depose in place and instead of the principal. The issue which arises in this application was not considered in the said decision. We have carefully perused the judgment in the case of Anant Chimanlal Bhatt (supra) wherein various decisions including the decision in the case of Janki V. Bhojwani (supra) were considered. In paragraph 3, the Division Bench referred to two decisions of this Court and held that the Division Bench has confirmed the view that a power of attorney holder has no right to address the Court. However, at the same time, there is a discretion in the Court to allow a power of attorney holder who is a close relative of a litigant to address the Court, provided the holder of the power of attorney is conversant with the facts of the case and is in a position to address and assist the Court.
5. Perusal of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Veena J. Shah records reasons as to why power of attorney holder of the litigant was permitted to plead the case on behalf of the litigant. Going back to the case of Varsha A. Maheshwari, in paragraph 9, after considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Janki V. Bhojwani (Supra), the Division Bench clearly held that the person holding power of attorney on behalf of a party authorising him to appear, act or plead for him before the Court of Law is not entitled to a right of audience before a Court of Law and cannot be heard as a representative of the party unless specifically permitted by the Court to do so upon proper application moved by the party himself. In the facts of the case, the application was moved by the husband of a party.
6. Coming back to the averments made in the present application, it is not the case of the petitioners/applicants that the Constituted Attorney is related to them. Except for stating that they have jointly and severally executed a power of attorney in the name of Mr. Ibrahim Aabdul Kader Mansuri, they have not set out any reasons as to why their Constituted Attorney should be permitted to plead before this Court. It is not the case of the Constituted Attorney that he is related to the petitioners. What is the connection between the Constituted Attorney and the petitioners is not pleaded at all in the application. The Constituted Attorney appears to be a complete stranger to the petitioners. Therefore, no case is made out for permitting the Constituted Attorney to plead the case of the petitioners in their behalf in the writ petition.
7. Accordingly, application is rejected. Place the petition on 26 November 2018. Registry to issue notice to the petitioners enclosing therewith a copy of this order. We make it clear that the petitioners are free to engage there own Advocate, they are free to appear in person or they are free to apply for legal aid to the High Court Legal Services Committee. The petitioners can appear in person, provided compliance is made with the Rules framed in that behalf by this Court.