Gauhati High Court imposes cost on advocates who signed Vakalatnama

The Gauhati High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 each upon two advocates who had signed the Vakalatnama for a non-existing petitioner in a frivolous litigation which went on for more than 6 years.
Gauhati High Court imposes cost on advocates who signed Vakalatnama

A frivolous litigation which went on for more than 6 years!

STAFF REPORTER

GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 each upon two advocates who had signed the Vakalatnama for a non-existing petitioner in a frivolous litigation which went on for more than 6 years.

The court observed that in the history of the judicial system, frivolous litigation is not something unknown. In fact, it relates back to the starting of the judicial process of adjudication of disputes. But this case “is absolutely shocking and would form a class of its own in the category of frivolous cases”.

Beolin Kharbhih is the petitioner in the case who claimed to be a distant relative of one Sankar Prasad Nath, former Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Assam. A case was projected by the petitioner that the said Officer was entrusted with some sensitive cases involving politically influential persons of Assam and Meghalaya for which he was receiving threats and was killed in a hit-and-run case on 09.06.2007. The wife of Sankar Prasad Nath, Anjali Nath also died under “mysterious circumstances”. The petitioner claimed to have submitted many representations for proper investigation which was not paid heed to. She then filed a writ petition (WP(C)/5139/2016) in Gauhati High Court against the closure of the investigation. The writ petition was filed in 2016 with as many as 26 respondents, including a sitting judge of the Meghalaya High Court. The Court found that no specific allegation was made against the judge and accordingly struck off his name.

The case has been going on since the year 2016 and during the enquiry and investigation, it came to light that no person in the name of Beolin Kharbhih (petitioner) exists. The status report filed by the Government Advocate, Assam stated that even the CID could not find any clue of the existence of the petitioner after it made investigation by examining the CCTV footage, business premises with which the petitioner had claimed to be connected. Newspaper publications were also made to trace her.

The Court, after recording that the existence of the petitioner is seriously doubtful, had directed the petitioner’s counsel to secure personal appearance of the petitioner. The advocate for the petitioner after taking further time on several occasions, submitted before the court on March 9, 2023 that the notice issued to the petitioner by registered post had returned back with endorsement that “no such person”.

The Gauhati High Court remarked, “It appears that the petition has been filed in a well planned manner from which it is apparent that there has been a conspiracy. The Vakalatnama which contains the signature of the petitioner is accepted by Shri HS Kalsi and Shri RS Sadiyal as advocates.”

The court stated, “.......what is astonishing is that the judicial process has been successfully taken for a ride for the last more than six years by instituting and continuing a case by a non-existing person. The role of the counsel who has appeared for the non-existing petitioner is absolutely important as the counsel had accepted the case of the petitioner by signing the Vakalatnama and taking all steps from time to time on behalf of the non-existing petitioner.

“In that view of the matter, while the writ petition is dismissed, cost of Rs 50,000 only is imposed upon each of the counsel who has signed the Vakalatnama for a non-existing petitioner.”

The court also recommended that the matter be thoroughly enquired by the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland etc. and appropriate steps be taken against the persons in accordance with law, if found guilty.

Also Watch:

Top Headlines

No stories found.
Sentinel Assam
www.sentinelassam.com