'Only God Can Save These Types Of Lawyers': Kerala High Court After Advocate Argues Against Interest Of His Client

The Kerala High Court on Monday observed that lawyers are duty-bound to act in the interest of their clients and that they should refrain from arguing against such interests. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed so in a decision that ruled that a licence under the Kerala Places of Public Resort Act, 1963 is necessary to run a gymnasium in the State as long as the Act remains in force."The duty of the lawyer is to take care of the interest of his client and to tell him the exact laws and provisions of the particular case and what are the remedies. He should not hurt the interest of his client by any of his acts and omissions... Even after this Court repeatedly alerted the lawyer that he is arguing against the interest of his client, the lawyer stick to his argument. Only God can save these types of lawyers. I leave it there."The Court was adjudicating upon two petitions; one that challenged the functioning of a neighbouring fitness centre without obtaining a licence from the concerned Municipality, and another filed by a gym aggrieved by the refusal to issue a license by the Municipality.At this juncture, the Standing Counsel for the Municipality contended that the Act of 1963 is not applicable after the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 came into force.Calling this a 'strange' argument, the Judge emphasised that the Municipality was bound by the directions issued by the State. This is in light of the fact that a recent letter from the State clearly stated that a licence is necessary to run a gymnasium as per the Act.Notably, the Court also took strong exception to the argument raised by the Standing Counsel since not only was it contrary to Section 58 of the Municipality Act, he was found to be arguing against the interest of his client."First of all, there is no such case to the Municipality or to the petitioner. Moreover, the Government submitted a report before this Court in which it is stated that for conducting a Gymnasium, the licence is necessary as per The Kerala Places of Public Resort Act, 1963. The Municipality is bound by the directions issued by the Government. Section 58 of The Kerala Municipality Act 1994 deals with the power of the Government to issue directions to Municipality. In such circumstances, according to me, the contention of the Counsel for the Municipality, which has no backing of his own client's contention need not be considered."As such, the argument of the Standing Counsel was dismissed. While holding that a license under the Act of 1963 is mandatory, the Judge also made it clear that sufficient time of 3 months should be given to the gymnasiums to obtain such licence and that no gyms should be closed down immediately for lack of licence under the Act. It was added that merely because an objection is raised, the application for a licence cannot be automatically rejectedTherefore, the State was asked to issue a general direction to all the Corporations, Municipalities, and Panchayats to find out if any gymnasiums were functioning in their area of operation without getting a licence as per the Act and if so, a notice was to be issued to those gymnasiums to get a licence within three months.Case Title: Dhanya & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 340Click Here To Read/Download The Order

'Only God Can Save These Types Of Lawyers': Kerala High Court After Advocate Argues Against Interest Of His Client

Hannah M Varghese

Tags