'- <- o ^~ Pefitioner Piajntiff Respondents Defendants HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARHJBILAS&iR Writ Petition (Ci 227 No. 59S2 of 2008 Sandeep Kumar Jagaframka, Sio. Shri Suresh Kumar Jagatramka, aged about 21 years, R/o. Gandhi Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil & District Raigarh (CG). Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh ttirough the Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). 2. The Sub Diwsional Magistrate, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). (Writ Petition under Articie 227 of Constitutien of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ^ Present: Mr. Anil Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyar for tfta State, ORALORD6R (Passed on this 17 day ofNovember, 2008) With the consent of ieamed counsel appearing for ttis parties, the matfer is heard finally. 2) The petitioner was not permltted to represent tto cas®through Shri Suresh Kumar Jagatramka, Advocate, who happens te be telher of the petitfoner. Learned District Judge, Raigarh, without examining ttie professional etiquettes, has come to the conclusion ttat it is contrary to the professionai etiqusttes. 3) On perusa! of the Standards of Professiona! Conduct and Efiquttee under Chapter il (Rutes under section 49 (1)(c) of ttie Advoeates Act, 1961 read with the proviso thereto), it appears that there is no bar for Advocate So appear on behalf of his son. Thus, the order impugned Is without reason and without considering the issue involvedat length. Thus, the impugned order dated 30-8-2008 (Annexure P/1) desewes to be sel; asiefe and is set aside. •~ ••^rtS.SKK--;, -'i' Raju 4) Accordingiy, the petition is atlowed. The matter is remitted to the trial Court to considerthe case at length, if necessary. 5) Consequently, I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 also stand disposed of."f^"^ ^v^e v ...- ^rtSta^tsi^^^ •~