IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15384 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.VISWANATHAN NAIR, 'POURNAMI', PAZHAVILA DESOM, PANTHALAKODE (P.O.), VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REGD. OFFICE : 'BHADRATHA', P.B.NO.510, THRISSUR-20. 2. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, BHADRATHA, THRISSUR. BY SC SRI.NAVEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).15384/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner, a practicing lawyer at Attingal and Thiruvananthapuram was engaged as a part-time legal adviser of the 1st respondent; terms and conditions thereof are mentioned in Ext.P5. According to the petitioner, while so he was appointed as domestic enquiry officer in an issue involving all the employees of the 1st respondent and he submitted Ext.P4 report concluding that the charges framed against the employees of the company are on the basis of certain presumptions and suspicions and that the Management has thoroughly failed to put forward any proper evidence to substantiate his challenge. He submits that in the wake of Ext.P4, Management decided to terminate his services as a part time legal adviser with effect from 30.4.2009 and issued Ext.P2 in this regard. Ext.P2 has been challenged in this writ petition. W.P.(C).15384/09 2 2. The relationship between the petitioner and the KSFE is only that of a counsel and a client. It is open to the client to engage the services of an advocate. But it is the decision of the advocate to decide whether he should appear. I am of the opinion that the petitioner, a senior member of the Bar, who is to uphold the tradition of the Bar should respond to Ext.P2 by taking the stand that the client who is not satisfied with his services is no longer welcome in his office. At any rate, I do not think that the petitioner himself can be aggrieved by Ext.P2 and seek restoration of his status of part- time legal adviser of the 2nd respondent after the 2nd respondent has taken a decision to terminate his service. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition and hence the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs