Gujarat High Court Refers Advocate's Conduct To Bar Council For Failing To Represent Client Despite Court Orders, Imposes ₹5K Fine

The Gujarat High Court has imposed a Rs 5,000 fine on an advocate for repeatedly failing to represent his client despite specific court orders.

Additionally, the court has decided to forward Advocate Prashant V. Chavda's conduct to the Bar Council of Gujarat for further scrutiny. The Court remarked that Chavda's behaviour did not uphold the standards of the legal profession, and emphasized the need for the Bar Council to take suitable action against him. Chavda has been instructed to pay the penalty to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within 30 days.

Justice Nikhil Kariel, presiding over the case, held, “Advocates are essentially officers of the Court whose solemn duty is to render assistance to the Court to arrive at a just conclusion to ensure that justice is rendered. Learned advocate Mr. Chavda by not remaining present inspite of repeated orders and also not co-operating with the petitioners has rendered exactly the opposite of the same, which is expected from learned advocate.”

“The absence of the learned advocate has also resulted in unnecessary wastage of precious time of the Court. Under such circumstances, while this Court deems it appropriate to refer the conduct of the learned advocate to the Bar Council, this Court also deems it appropriate to impose cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) upon the learned advocate to be payable to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. If the present order is not complied with, than the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps,” Justice Kariel added.

Notably, the petition was filed through advocate Chavda but had failed to remain present or make alternate arrangements on several occasions.

The Court in its previous order dated 27.03.2024, had noted the absence of Chavda who had filed the petition on behalf of the petitioners.

“In Spite of the specific directions that the advocate shall either remain present or to make an alternative arrangement, learned advocate Mr. Chavda has not remained present before this Court and whereas no alternative arrangements are made,” the Court stated.

The petitioners had also raised a grievance that neither Chavda was responding to their telephone calls nor was he returning the papers to the petitioners.

The Court while observing that the advocate had not remained true to his profession said that the advocate has also not remained true to his profession by remaining evasive with his clients.

Observing Chavda's behaviour, the Court remarked that the advocate's habit of evading court appearances and providing sick/leave notes suggests a disregard for the court and the legal process.

The Court further said that when the Court has repeatedly passed orders directing Chavda to remain present or to make alternate arrangements, it was for him to ensure that an appropriate alternative arrangement was made.

The Court stated, “It is to be noted that the matter had been heard on 13.02.2024 and whereas while it appears that the serious allegations are made against the officials of the State Government and whereas since this Court sought to know from the learned advocate as to the circumstances under which the allegations are made and the said query making the learned advocate uncomfortable, the said learned advocate had not appeared before this Court thereafter.”

Case Title: Diptiben Shankarbhai Rathava & Ors. Versus Gujarat Public Service Commission & Ors

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 48

Click Here To Download Judgement