mr»n» ^^T^ /^%- "v!- (lt.:l% C^6'i HIGH COLTRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON No. 3813 of2004 PETITIONER : Fakfan.iddin Ahined Khai'i, aeed 47 vears, son of Late Sliri Moiniiddin Kliaii, resideiit of Sarbahara, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (CKhattisgarh) i^pOTyS V 1^1\.0<^0 <" RESPONDENTS ; District Registrar cum Liceiising Authority cum Collector of Stainps Bilaspur (C^ihattisgarh) ^•RIT PETITION L'NDER .WTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTtTUTION OF IKDIA SB: Hon'ble SSiri Satish K. Agmhotri, J. Pressnt: Shri Soiimatli Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri M.P.S.Bhatia- Deputy Govemnient Advocate forthe State/respondent. (Passed on 10m day of December, 2008) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has impugiied the letter dated 27.9.2004 (Annexiire P/3) whereby the District Registrar, Bilaspur, has rejected flie application of the petitioner for engagement of an Advocate in the case pending before him. Sl'iri Venna furtlier subniits tliat the petitioner is living at Pendra Road and it is difficult for him to attead the proceedings of the case on each aad evety day, therefore, the pstitioner wants sendces of a legal man including Advocate to appear on his behalf and present the case. 2. Shi'i Bhatia, leamed Deputy Govermaent Advocate appearing for the State/respondepts siibniits that there is no bar in engagement of an Advocate. However, in cotiniion practice, no Advocate is pemiitted to be eneaged ia a case before the Registrar, thus, tlie petitioner was declined pemrission to engage sen'ices ofanAdvocate. ^^^ •y" -J^) \^-^y^/ '^teaSSE^' -2- 3. A&ei hearing leamed counsel for the parties, it is not pointed out by leamed counssl appearing for the respojident that there is aay bar in engagement of aai Advocate. It may be a common practice not to pennit engagement of an Advocate to contest the matter before the Reaistrai", but havins regard to the facts sittiatioa of tlie case wherein the petifioner is a poor man and he caiiaot afford attending the matter before ths Registrar on accouiit of flie fact that he is living at Pendra Road, eagagement of aii advocate is penmssible. Even otlierwise, section 30(iii) of the Advocate's Act, 1961, also provides that evety advocate whose naine is entered m the State roll shal! be eiititled as of right to practice through out tiie ten-itories to vAich this Act extends, before any other authority or person before whom such advoeate is by or under aiiy law for the time beiag in force entitled to practice. There is no bar prohibiting engagement ofan Advocate to contest the matter before the Reeistrar. 4. Tiius, the letter dated 27.09.2004 (Amexure P/3) is quashed. Tlie petitioner is permitted to engage an advocate for appearance on his behalfand cotitest tlie matter before the respondent. 5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. No order asto costs. 6. Consequently, M(W)P No. 4223/2004, 799/2005 and I.A. No. 1920/2005, stand disposed of. -— — - .- Sd/- sat^ K. Agaihotri Judge Amit