RAJKUMAR vs The Registrar General,

Court: Madras High Court
Case type: WP
Decided on: 24-03-2026

<div> W.P.No.10993 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.03.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN WP No.10993 of 2026 and WMP N o .11924 of 2026 Rajkumar S/o.Anbalagan, D.No.5/170, Annai Ganga Nair Township-2, Pedampalli, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai - 600 104. 2. The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authority, North Fort Road, High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104. 3. The Principal District Judge cum Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Combined District Court Complex, Coimbatore- 641 018. ______________ Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:33:09 pm ) W.P.No.10993 of 2026 4. The Secretary cum Sub Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Combined District Court Complex, Coimbatore- 641018. 5. C.Ganeshkumar S/o.Chinaraj, 49, Sir Shanmugam Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore - 641 002. Respondent(s) PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the third respondent in D.No.143/2026 dated 02.03.2026 and to quash the same. For Petitioner(s): Mr. M.Saravanakumar For Respondent(s):Mr. V.Vasanthakumar Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.S.Arokiamaniraj for R2 to R4 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Seeking quashment of the order dated 2.3.2026 passed by the third respondent, in and by which the petitioner was removed from the B-Panel of Advocates of the District Legal Services Authority, Coimbatore, the present writ petition is filed. ______________ Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:33:09 pm ) W.P.No.10993 of 2026 2.1. The nub of the matter is that the petitioner was allotted MCOP case by the fourth respondent to appear on behalf of the fifth respondent vide order dated 15.10.2025. It is stated that the expenses incurred towards filing of vakalath were not reimbursed either by the fourth or fifth respondent till date. 2.2. It is further stated that, on 12.1.2026, as the petitioner was sick, he engaged his friend, Murugan, who is an advocate, to file vakalath on his behalf for the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent alleged that the said Murugan demanded Rs.500/-, which was paid. It was further alleged by the fifth respondent that a sum of Rs.2000/- was demanded from him to conduct the case. 2.3. It is asserted that after filing of the vakalath on behalf of the fifth respondent on 12.1.2026, the case was adjourned to 20.2.2026. It is pleaded that the petitioner has conducted over 30 legal aid cases without any complaint from whomsoever, but based on the allegation levelled by the fifth respondent, the third ______________ Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:33:09 pm ) W.P.No.10993 of 2026 respondent has removed the petitioner from the B Panel advocates. Hence, the present writ petition. 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and there is no misconduct or breach of trust on the part of the petitioner while discharging his duty as legal aid advocate. 3.2. It is further submitted that in view of the order impugned the reputation of the petitioner is tarnished and his professional life would be adversely affected. 4. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has been enacted to constitute legal services authorities to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. ______________ Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:33:09 pm ) W.P.No.10993 of 2026 5. In the case on hand, the asseverations are categorical to the effect that the petitioner has engaged his friend, Murugan, an Advocate, to file vakalath on his behalf for the fifth respondent. It is further asserted that the fifth respondent is owning auto rickshaw and he could afford to provide fees and engage a private counsel, but the said fact was not considered by respondent Nos.3 and 4. A serious allegation is levelled in the affidavit against third and fourth respondents that they have not provided vakalath fees to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.15,000/- in 29 cases. 6. Be that as it may, it is beyond any cavil that the petitioner has engaged his friend to file a vakalath on his behalf for the fifth respondent. It is also not disputed that petitioner’s friend received a sum of Rs.500/- from the fifth respondent. The explanation offered by the petitioner did not find favour with the third respondent and, accordingly, the petitioner was removed from the B Panel of advocates. ______________ Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:33:09 pm ) W.P.No.10993 of 2026 7. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to certain provisions contained in the National Legal Services Authority (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations, 2010 herein below: “8. Selection of legal practitioners as panel lawyers.– ... (16) The panel lawyers shall not ask for or receive any fee, remuneration or any valuable consideration in any manner, from the person to whom he has rendered legal services under these regulations . (17) If the panel lawyer engaged is not performing satisfactorily or has acted contrary to the object and spirit of the Act and these regulations, the Legal Services Institution shall take appropriate steps including withdrawal of the case from such lawyer and his removal from the panel. ” [emphasis supplied] 9. In the instant case, the conduct of the petitioner in engaging his friend to file vakalath and the fact that his friend demanded money from the fifth respondent is certainly unbecoming of an advocate empanelled for discharging the noble object of ______________ Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:33:09 pm ) W.P.No.10993 of 2026 providing free and competent legal services to the weaker sections. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the third respondent. 10. For the reasons aforegiven, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim application stands closed. We make it clear that the third respondent shall pay the fees, if any, due and payable to the petitioner in accordance with law, at the earliest. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 24.03.2026 Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes sasi ______________ Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:33:09 pm ) W.P.No.10993 of 2026 To: 1. The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai - 600 104. 2. The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authority, North Fort Road, High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104. 3. The Principal District Judge cum Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Combined District Court Complex, Coimbatore- 641 018. 4. The Secretary cum Sub Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Combined District Court Complex, Coimbatore- 641018. ______________ Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:33:09 pm ) W.P.No.10993 of 2026 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J. (sasi) WP No.10993 of 2026 24.03.2026 ______________ Page 9 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 06:33:09 pm )</div>