Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) This petition has been filed by one Smt. Nirmala Devi, who in terms of the memo of parties is estranged wife of Mani Chand and a resident of Village Bagain, Post Office and Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P.
2. The issue raised in the writ petition is with regard to
"Day and Night Liquor Drinking Centre, opened at a very small Kacha house of the petitioner." The petition has not been filed through any Counsel or in person, but as the same is filed through
1
2
an Authorized Representative Mr. Naresh Kumar, who is present in the Court in person. On a query put to Mr. Naresh Kumar, he informed the Court that Nirmala Devi is not related to him. Further query was put to Mr. Naresh Kumar, as to he hails from which area and he told the Court that he belongs to Village Tilu, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. Further, a perusal of the pleadings demonstrates that at Page-72 therein on a piece of paper, a Power of Attorney is stated to have executed by Smt. Nirmala Devi in favour of Mr. Naresh Kumar, authorizing him to draft and file the petition and argued in the same on behalf of the petitioner in the Court. Again a query was put to Mr. Naresh Kumar, as to whether he is a Lawyer by profession or not, he submitted that he was not a Lawyer. Mr. Naresh Kumar referred to Page-73 of the Paper Book and submitted an application, i.e. CMP No.31249 of 2025, has been filed under Section 32 of the Advocate Act, 1961, on behalf of the petitioner, seeking permission to permit his Authorized Representative to appear and argue the case.
3. This Court is of the considered view that there is no occasion for this Court to allow this application under Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which confers discretion upon the Court, whether or not to allow the application. The Authorized
H
ig
C
ou r
of
H
3
Representative, per se, is a stranger as far as the issue is concerned. He is neither related to the petitioner nor he is a resident of the area from which the petitioner hails. In case the petitioner is really aggrieved by the acts as are mentioned in the petition and she is not in a position to engage a lawyer, she can always approach the Court, seeking legal aid. But, this Court sees no reason to allow the petitioner to file this petition by granting permission as is prayed under Section 32 of the Advocate Act, 1961 through Naresh Kumar.
4. Accordingly, the application, i.e. CMP No.31249 of 2025 is dismissed, so is the fate of the main petition, i.e. CWP No.20110 of 2025. The petitioner can always approach the Court afresh by seeking appropriate legal remedy available as per law by availing legal aid. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
December 19, 2025
(Rishi)
H
ig h Co ur o f H