# Sunil Kumar Tripathi v. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 1234
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-06-04
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 21947 of 2019
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-kumar-tripathi-v-high-court-of-judicature-at-allahabad-ors-44650
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 16(2) -
Designation of Senior Advocates Rules,
2018 - notification u/s 16(2) -Designation
of Senior Advocates-conferment of status
of 'Senior Advocate' is not a matter of
3 All. Sunil Kumar Tripathi Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.& Ors.
1235
right-it is recognition by court -manner of
assessment -subjective- do not involve any
principles
of
natural
justice
-but
assessment by Committee.

Held :- Every person who has passed L.L.B. and
enrolled with Bar Counsel concerned, becomes
an Advocate and this does not require any
recognition by Court as such but to cross the
level from Advocate to 'Senior Advocate', it
requires an appreciation and recognition by Court
to the eminence, learnedness, depth of legal
knowledge, Court craft and conduct, manner and
purity demonstrated by an Advocate in his
practice at the Bar, not only towards the client
but to the Court also and similar other aspects.
(Para 19)

Writ Petition dismissed (E-9)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complainant in the case stated that since
the charges which were made against the
petitioner were clear from the charge
sheet itself, no further enquiry was
required.

7. Upon hearing the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the learned Standing
Counsel
and
Sri
Dhirendra
Kumar
Srivastava appearing for the respondent
no. 6, this Court is of the definite view
that the order impugned cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law.

8. A perusal of the impugned order
dated 4.6.2019 definitely shows that no
independent enquiry was ever conducted
after the suspension order dated 4.4.2019
was passed. The enquiry which is on the
record appears to be put on the basis of
the charges and the replies which were
there on the record before the suspension
order was passed. A perusal of the order
dated 4.6.2019 also shows that the
enquiry conducted on 2.1.2019 by the
Supply Inspector was only depended
upon by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil
- Sakaldiha.

9. Having found that the enquiry
was not done in compliance of the order
dated 29.7.2004 and 16.10.2014, this
Court is of the view that no useful
purpose would be served by relegating the
petitioner to file an appeal when no
enquiry whatsoever was undergone. There
was
definitely
a
gross-violation
of
principles
of
natural
justice.
The
contention of
the
learned
Standing
Counsel that as per the Clause 15 of the
agreement the contract could have been
terminated without any show cause notice
is also not tenable. Had there been no
stigma or allegation against the petitioner
and
contract
had
been
terminated
simplicitor then no enquiry was required.
However, when a stigma was being cast
upon the petitioner and charges were
being levelled then it becomes imperative
that the petitioner should have been heard
in a proper enquiry.

10. Under such circumstances, the
order dated 4.6.2019 and the order dated
4.4.2019 cannot be sustained in the eyes
of law and, thus, the same are quashed.

11. The writ petition is allowed.

12. The petitioner's Fair Price Shop
Licence would be restored and the shop
which the petitioner was running would
also be restored to her.
----------

(2019)11ILR A1234

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

Writ C No. 21947 of 2019

Sunil Kumar Tripathi ...Petitioner
Versus
High Court of Judicature At Allahabad &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi (In Person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashish Mishra

A. Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 16(2) -
Designation of Senior Advocates Rules,
2018 - notification u/s 16(2) -Designation
of Senior Advocates-conferment of status
of 'Senior Advocate' is not a matter of
3 All. Sunil Kumar Tripathi Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.& Ors.
1235
right-it is recognition by court -manner of
assessment -subjective- do not involve any
principles
of
natural
justice
-but
assessment by Committee.

Held :- Every person who has passed L.L.B. and
enrolled with Bar Counsel concerned, becomes
an Advocate and this does not require any
recognition by Court as such but to cross the
level from Advocate to 'Senior Advocate', it
requires an appreciation and recognition by Court
to the eminence, learnedness, depth of legal
knowledge, Court craft and conduct, manner and
purity demonstrated by an Advocate in his
practice at the Bar, not only towards the client
but to the Court also and similar other aspects.
(Para 19)

Writ Petition dismissed (E-9)

List of cases cited: -

1. Indira Jaising Vs Supreme Court of India
(2017) 9 SCC 766

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi,
Advocate in person and Sri Ashish
Mishra, learned counsel for respondents.

2. Petitioner, a practicing Advocate
in this Court, has filed this writ petition
under Article 226 of Constitution of India
challenging notification dated 20.05.2019
issued by Registrar General of this Court
under Section 16(2) of Advocates Act
1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act,
1961') designating 75 'Advocates' as
'Senior Advocates' with effect from
18.05.2019.

3. Facts, in brief, giving rise to the
present writ petition are that petitioner
obtained degree of L.L.B. from Banaras
Hindu University and thereafter registered
with Bar Counsel of Uttar Pradesh vide
Enrollment
No.
U.P.
607
dated
12.03.1977. He claims that since then he
is continuously practicing in this Court.
However, he was registered as Member of
High
Court
Bar
Association
on
15.01.2001.

4. Issue with regard to designation
of Senior Advocates under Section 16 of
Act, 1961 came up before Supreme Court
in Indira Jaising Vs Supreme Court of
India (2017) 9 SCC 766, Court laid down
certain norms/guidelines with a direction
to modify Rules relating to designation of
'Senior Advocates' by respective Courts.
Directions/guidelines contained in para 73
of judgment read as under:-

"73. It is in the above backdrop
that we proceed to venture into the
exercise and lay down the following
norms/guidelines which henceforth would
govern the exercise of designation of
Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court
and all High Courts in the country. The
norms/guidelines, in existence, shall be
suitably modified so as to be in accord
with the present.

73.1 All matters relating to
designation of Senior Advocates in the
Supreme Court of India and in all the
High Courts of the country shall be dealt
with by a Permanent Committee to be
known as "Committee for Designation of
Senior Advocates";

73.2 The Permanent Committee
will be headed by the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice of India and consist of two senior
most Judges of the Supreme Court of
India [or High Court(s), as may be]; the
learned Attorney General for India
(Advocate General of the State in case of
a High Court) will be a Member of the
Permanent Committee. The above four
1236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Members of the Permanent Committee
will nominate another Member of the Bar
to be the fifth Member of the Permanent
Committee;

73.3 The said Committee shall
have a permanent Secretariat, the
composition of which will be decided by
the Chief Justice of India or the Chief
Justices of the High Courts, as may be, in
consultation with the other Members of
the Permanent Committee;

73.4 All applications including
written proposals by the Hon'ble Judges
will be submitted to the Secretariat. On
receipt of such applications or proposals
from Hon'ble Judges, the Secretariat will
compile
the
relevant
data
and
information
with
regard
to
the
reputation, conduct, integrity of the
advocates(s) concerned including his/her
participation in pro bono work; reported
judgments in which the advocate(s)
concerned had appeared; the number of
such judgments for the last five years.
The
source(s)
from
which
information/data will be sought and
collected by the Secretariat will be as
decided by the Permanent Committee

73.5
The
Secretariat
will
publish the proposal of designation of a
particular advocate in the official website
of the Court concerned inviting the
suggestions/views of other stakeholders
in the proposed designation;

73.6 After the database in
terms of the above is compiled and all
such information as may be specifically
directed by the Permanent Committee to
be obtained in respect of any particular
candidate is collected, the Secretariat
shall put up the case before the
Permanent Committee for scrutiny;

73.7
The
Permanent
Committee will examine each case in the
light of the data provided by the
Secretariat of the Permanent Committee;
interview the advocate concerned; and
make its overall assessment on the basis
of a point based format indicated
below:-

S.No.
Matter
Points
1.
Number
of
years
of
practice of the Applicant
Advocate from the date of
enrollment

[10 points for 10-20 years
of practice; 20 points for
practice beyond 20 years]
20 points
2.
Judgments (Reported and
unreported)
which
indicate
the
legal
formulations advanced by
the advocate concerned in
the
course
of
the
proceedings of the case;
pro bono work done by the
advocate
concerned;
domain expertise of the
applicant
advocate
in
various branches of law,
such as Constitutional law,
Inter-State
Water
Disputes, Criminal law,
Arbitration law, Corporate
law, Family law, Human
Rights,
Public
Interest
Litigation,
International
law,
law
relating
to
women, etc.
40 points
3.
Publications
by
the
applicant advocate
15 points
4.
Test of personality and
suitability on the basis of
interview/interaction
25 points

73.8 All the names that are
listed
before
the
Permanent
Committee/cleared by the Permanent
Committee will go to the Full Court.

73.9 Voting by secret ballot will
not normally be resorted to by the Full
Court except when unavoidable. In the
event of resort to secret ballot, decisions
will be carried by a majority of the
Judges who have chosen to exercise their
preference/choice.
3 All. Sunil Kumar Tripathi Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.& Ors.
1237

73.10 All cases that have not
been favorably considered by the Full
Court may be reviewed/reconsidered
after expiry of a period of two years
following the manner indicated above as
if the proposal is being considered afresh;

73.11 In the event a Senior
Advocate is guilty of conduct which
according to the Full Court disentitles the
Senior Advocate concerned to continue to
be worthy of the designation, the Full
Court
may
review
its
decision
to
designate the person concerned and
recall the same."

(emphasis added)

5. Accordingly, this Court, in
exercise of powers under Article 225
made amendment in Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952, Volume 1, (hereinafter
referred to as 'Rules, 1952') by publishing
Allahabad High Court (Amendment)
Rules, 2018 and thereby Chapter XXIV of
Rules, 1952 was substituted by a new set
of Rules called as "Designation of Senior
Advocates Rules, 2018". It contains 12
Rules. Rule 1 talks of "Short title, extent
and commencement"; Rule 2 provides
"Definitions"; Rule 3 to Rule 7 contain
the
Constitution
of
Permanent
Committee, the procedure for inviting
applications
or
recommendation
of
Advocates as Senior Advocates and
procedure for their designation. Rule 8
imposes certain restrictions on designated
Senior Advocates; Rule 9 prohibits
canvassing in any manner in designation
of Senior Advocate and Rule 10 provides
that
if
any
question
relating
to
interpretation of Rules arises, it shall be
referred to the Chief Justice whose
decision thereon shall be final. Rule 11
confer powers upon Court to review or
recall any Senior Advocate after he has
been
designated
i.e.
withdrawal
of
designation as Senior Advocate and Rule
12 provides that repeal and saving.

6. For the purpose of present writ
petition, Rules 3 to 7 of Rules, 2018 are
relevant and reproduced as under:-

"3. Permanent Committee for
designation of Senior Advocates:- (1) All
the matters relating to designation of
Senior Advocates in the High Court shall
be
dealt
with
by
the
Permanent
Committee, which will be headed by the
Chief Justice and consist of the two
Senior-most Judges of the High Court;
(ii) the Advocate General of the State of
Uttar Pradesh; and (iii) a designated
Senior Advocate of the Bar to be
nominated by the members of the
Committee.

(2) The Committee constituted
under
sub-rule
(1)
shall
have
a
Secretariat, the composition of which will
be decided by the Chief Justice of the
High Court, in consultation with other
members of the Committee.

(3) The Committee may issue
such directions from time to time as
deemed necessary regarding functioning
of the Secretariat, including the manner
in which, and the source/s from which, the
necessary data and information with
regard to designation of Senior Advocates
are to be collected, compiled and
presented.

4. Designation of an Advocate
as Senior Advocate:- (1) The High Court
may designate an Advocate as a Senior
Advocate, if in its opinion, by virtue of
his/her ability and standing at the Bar,
the said Advocate is deserving of such
distinction.

Explanation:
The
term
"standing at the Bar" means position of
eminence attained by an Advocate at the
1238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bar by virtue of his/her seniority, legal
acumen, and high ethical standards
maintained by him, both inside and
outside the Court.

(2) An advocate who has put in
at least ten years of actual practice as an
advocate
shall
be
eligible
to
be
designated as Senior Advocate.

Provided that a retired Judge of
any High Court, who is qualified to
practice in the Allahabad High Court may
also
be
recommended
for
being
designated.

5. Motion for Designation as
Senior Advocate:- Designation of an
Advocate as Senior Advocate by the High
Court may be considered:

(a) on the written proposal
made by the Chief Justice or any sitting
Judge of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Provided that a sitting Judge
will not make a proposal for more than
two Advocates in a calendar year; or

(b) on the written application
submitted by an Advocate, recommended
by two designated Senior Advocates.

Provided
further
that
such
designated Senior Advocates will not
recommend the names of more than two
Advocates in a calendar year.

6. Procedure for Designation:-
(1) All the written proposals and
applications
for
designation
of
an
Advocate as a Senior Advocate shall be
submitted to the Secretariat.

Provided that every application
by an advocate shall be made in Form
No. 1 of APPENDIX-A appended to
these Rules.

Provided further that in case the
proposal emanates from a Judge it need
not be submitted in the prescribed form.
However once the proposal is received,
the
Secretariat
shall
request
such
advocate to submit form No. 1 duly filled
in within such time as directed by the
Committee and in such a case the
requirement of having recommendation of
two
Senior Advocates
would
stand
dispensed with.

(2) On receipt of an application
or proposal for designation of an
Advocate as a Senior Advocate, the
Secretariat shall compile the relevant
data and the information with regard to
the reputation, conduct, integrity of the
advocate
concerned
including
his
participation in pro bono work, reported
judgments of the last five years in which
the concerned advocate has appeared and
has actually argued.

(3) The Secretariat will notify
the proposed names of the advocates to
be designated as Senior Advocates on the
official website of the High Court of
Judicature
at
Allahabad,
inviting
suggestions and views within such time
as may be fixed by the Committee.

(4) After the material in terms
of the above is compiled and all such
information, as may be specifically
required by the Committee to be obtained
in respect of any particular candidate,
has been obtained and the suggestions
and views have been received, the
Secretarial shall put up the case before
the Committee for scrutiny.

(5) Upon submission of the case
by the Secretariat, the Committee shall
examine the same in the light of the
material provided and, if it so desires,
may also interact with the concerned
advocate(s) and thereafter make its
overall assessment on the basis of the
point
based
format
provided
in
APPENDIX-B to these Rules.

(6) After the overall assessment
by the Committee, all the names listed
3 All. Sunil Kumar Tripathi Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.& Ors.
1239
before it will be submitted to the Full
Court along with its Assessment Report.

(7) Normally voting by ballot
shall
not
be
resorted
to
unless
unavoidable. The motion shall be carried
out by consensus, failing with voting by
ballot may be resorted to. In the event of
voting by ballot, the views of the majority
of the Judges present and voting shall
constitute the decision of the Full Court.
In case the Judges present be equally
divided, the Chief Justice or in his
absence the Senior Judge present shall
have the casting vote.

(8) The cases that have not been
favorably considered by the Full Court
may be reviewed/reconsidered after the
expiry of a period of two years, following
the same procedure as prescribed above
as if the proposal is being considered
afresh.

7. Designation of Advocates as
Senior Advocates by the Chief Justice:-
(1) On the approval of the name of the
Advocate by the Full Court, the Chief
Justice shall designate such an advocate
as a Senior Advocate under Section 16 of
the Advocate's Act, 1961.

(2) The Registrar General shall
notify the designation to the Secretary
General of the Supreme Court of India,
the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Bar
Council of India and also to all the
District and Sessions Judges subordinate
to the High Court.

(3) A record of the proceedings
of the Committee and the record received
from the Full Court in this regard shall be
maintained by the Permanent Secretariat
for further reference."

 (emphasis added)

7. It may be noted here that Rule
6(5) talks of assessment about the
concerned Advocate on the basis of point
based format provided in Appendix-B
and,
therefore, Appendix-B
is
also
relevant. The same reads as under:-

S.N
o
Matter
Points
1.
Number of years of practice of
the Applicant Advocate from the
date of enrollment

[10 points for 10-20 years of
practice, 20 points for practice
beyond 20 years]

20 points
2.
Judgments
(Reported
and
unreported) which indicate the
legal proceeding formulations
advanced
by
the
concerned
Advocate in the course of the
proceedings of the case; pro bono
work done by the concerned
Advocate; domain Expertise of
the
Applicant
Advocate
in
various branches of law, such as
constitutional
law,
Inter-State
Water Disputes, Criminal law,
Arbitration law, Corporate law,
Family
law,
Human
Rights,
Public
Interest
Litigation,
International law, law relating to
women, etc.

40 points
3.
Publications by the Applicant
Advocate
15 points
4.
Test of Personality & Suitability
on
the
basis
of
interview/interaction
25 points

8. In response to Rules 4 and 5, by
notice, application from Advocates were
invited for consideration for designation
of Senior Advocates. Petitioner submitted
his application dated 19.07.2018. Names
of about 100 Advocates were received by
Secretariat.

9. These names were uploaded on
website inviting suggestions and views of
other stakeholders within 4 weeks.

10. Petitioner who has appeared in
person,
contended
that
procedure
1240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prescribed in Rules 6(4), 6(5) and 6(6) of
Rules, 2018 has been violated and also
the directions contained in paras 73, 74
and 75 of Supreme Court's judgement in
Indira
Jaising
(supra)
have
been
contravened,
therefore,
notification,
impugned in the present writ petition,
designating 75 Advocates as Senior
Advocates, is illegal. Petitioner contended
that Secretariat was required to collect all
relevant
materials
with
respect
to
Advocates who have submitted their
details
for
designation
as
Senior
Advocates
and
to
place
it
before
Permanent
Committee
for
scrutiny.
Thereafter, Permanent Committee shall
examine the case in the light of material
provided and if so desires, may also
interact with individual Advocate and,
thereafter, make its overall assessment on
the basis of point based format as
provided
in
Appendix-B.
Overall
assessment report of all names listed
before Committee has to be submitted to
Full Court and thereafter Full Court shall
consider the matter for designation of
Senior Advocates under Rule 6(7). Our
attention is drawn to averments made in
para 14 to the writ petition which reads as
under:-

"14. That procedure prescribed
under Rules 6(5) and 6(6) has been
completely overlooked as per following
detail.

(i) The Secretariat failed to
submit point based format provided in
Appendix-B before the Committee for
overall assessment of the Advocate.
Relevant to mention that there are 4
parameters in the Appendix-B to the Rule
of 2018 and the Secretariat by not
furnishing list of marks of all the
Advocates Applicants on 4 parameters,
grossly violated the directives in Rule 6(5)
of the Rule of 2018. The Committee
failed to prepare the overall assessment
report as per Appendix-B.

(ii) The Committee in the
absence of complete marking on the 4
parameters,
in
prescribed
format
provided in Appendix-B, could not submit
"overall assessment report" before the
Hon'ble Full Court for overall assessment
of the Advocate and as such Rule 6(6) has
been violated. Impugned notification
issued, without considering the overall
assessment report is not only arbitrary &
illegal but also violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India."

11. It is said that procedure
prescribed in Rules 5 and 6 has been
completely
overlooked,
therefore,
designation of 'Senior Advocates' is bad.
Petitioner claimed that details given by
him in respect of himself, if considered in
the light of point based format for
assessment, he is likely to secure 65
marks out of 75 (excluding 25 marks
meant for interaction/interview) and,
therefore, deserves to be designated as
Senior Advocate but has been denied the
same illegally.

12. When we questioned as to how
petitioner knows that no assessment has
been made by Permanent Committee as
contemplated under Rule 6(5) of Rules,
2018, he contended that a Senior
Advocate who is member of Permanent
Committee, informed him about this fact
and also that he has submitted a
dissenting note. He contended that no
such point based format of Advocates
prepared by Committee was placed before
Full Court and, therefore, Rule 6(5) has
not been complied with. What he
contended is that point based assessment
of all the advocate was required to be
3 All. Sunil Kumar Tripathi Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.& Ors.
1241
placed before Full Court. This argument
we find has no substance. A careful
reading of Rule 6(5) shows that after
material or information collected by
Secretariat is placed before Permanent
Committee, it shall examine the same in
the light of such material. The question of
interaction with concerned Advocate is
optional and not mandatory. Therefore,
whenever interaction is considered to be
necessary by Committee, the marks
provided for interaction will have to be
awarded otherwise marks provided for
interaction will be of no consequence.
Where Committee decided not to have
any interaction, Item-4 in Appendix-B
will become inapplicable and, thereafter
assessment shall be only on the basis of
item nos. 1, 2 and 3.

13. So far as item 1 is concerned, it
is correlated with the number of practice
and, therefore, can be assessed by every
person including concerned Advocate,
looking into account his number of
practice in Court.

14. So far as items no. 2 and 3 are
concerned, the same have to be judged by
Permanent Committee concerned and no
one
can
adjudge
himself
or
his
performance from the judgments he has
relied and the publications he has
supplied. On items 2 and 3, it is decision
of Permanent Committee and cannot be
self assessed by any individual.

15. Then coming to Rule 6(6), we
find that after making overall assessment
by Permanent Committee as per point
based format provided in Appendix-B, the
Committee shall prepare its report and
thereafter names listed before it shall be
placed before Full Court along with
"assessment report". Rule 6(6) talks of
"assessment report" and not the "actual
assessment" made as per Appendix-B.
Committee shall make its assessment as
per Appendix-B and thereafter it shall
submit "assessment report" to Full Court.

16. Petitioner appeared in person,
did not dispute and it is also evident from
pleadings in writ petition that in all, there
were 100 Advocates whose names were
placed before Permanent Committee but
ultimately only 75 Advocates have been
designated as Senior Advocates. Learned
Counsel appearing for High Court pointed
out that in the "assessment report"
submitted by Committee, it has given its
recommendation for not designating 22
Advocates as senior who were not found
fit
according
to
Committee.
It
recommended 78 Advocates, fit/suitable
for designation as Senior Advocates. Even
Full
Court
has
not
mechanically
designated all such Advocates who were
recommended by Permanent Committee
but has considered the matter objectively
and out of 78 so recommended, only 75
have been designated and 3 more
Advocates have not been found suitable
or fit for designation as Senior Advocates.
These facts as stated by Learned Counsel
appearing for High Court are not disputed
by petitioner. In our view, it clearly shows
that requirement of Rules has been
complied with, inasmuch as, Permanent
Committee was required to submit its
'assessment report' which it had submitted
to Full Court. It was considered by Full
Court and thereafter it also applied its
mind and designated only 75 Advocates
as Senior Advocates. It was always open
to Full Court to seek point based
assessment
made
by
Permanent
Committee as per Appendix-B for its
consideration if found necessary but to
suggest that such format was necessary to
1242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be supplied to Full Court otherwise
'assessment report' was not in consonance
with Rule 6(6), we find difficult to accept.
Hence, it cannot be said that procedure
prescribed in Rules 6(4)(5)(6) has not
been followed.

17. Petitioner then contended that
making interaction optional is contrary to
direction issued by Supreme Court. We
may notice hereat that validity of Rules is
not under challenge and, therefore, issue
of designation of Senior Advocate was to
be considered by this Court in the light of
Rules notified. Unless we find any patent
illegality by infringing the procedure
prescribed in Rules, we do not find that
exercise
undertaken
by
Court
for
designation
of
'Senior
Advocates',
consistent with Rules, would justify any
interference.

18. We can appreciate that petitioner
has a long experience of 41 years of
practice and in his own assessment, his
performance and level of practice is also
quite high but for designation of Senior
Advocate, it is not the individual's self
assessment which is material but it is the
assessment of work and performance of
Advocates in the opinion of Court which
is
of
ultimate
importance.
Mere
publication of some articles does not
mean that an Advocate can claim highest
marks assigned for publication of articles
irrespective of quality of articles, the
material contained therein, information it
is conveying to readers and other relevant
factors. Similarly, an Advocate may have
appeared in a number of cases decided by
Court but still the nature of issue raised
therein, the complexity of the matter in
which concerned Advocate has appeared
and the adjudication by this Court
considering
the
level
of
assistance
provided by Advocate are all relevant
factors for making assessment in respect
of judgments i.e. Item no. 2 of AppendixB. For example, if an Advocate has
appeared in hundreds of bail applications
decided by Court, the same cannot be
equated with the cases where issues of
vires of statutes are raised and decided by
Court. Importance of issues and decision
by Court involved in a particular case in
which Advocate concerned appeared, has
to be considered and appreciated from
case to case basis and that is why Item- 2
of Appendix-B provides marks in respect
to judgments. It is not number of
judgments irrespective of other relevant
considerations which will entitle an
Advocate to claim maximum marks
provided for Item-2 in Appendix-B. In
fact it is the objective consideration by
Committee, in respect of assessment
under items 2 and 3. Though the manner
of assessment to some extent is also
subjective since it does not involve any
principles
of
natural
justice
but
assessment has to be made by Committee
on its own on the basis of material
collected by it.

19. Conferment of status of 'Senior
Advocate' to an 'Advocate' is not a matter
of right. It is a recognition by Court to the
legal
knowledge,
high
degree
of
Advocacy, manner of presentation in
Court and other relevant considerations
which are cumulatively considered to
confer the status of 'Senior Advocate'
upon an Advocate. Every person who has
passed L.L.B. and enrolled with Bar
Counsel concerned, becomes an Advocate
and this does not require any recognition
by Court as such but to cross the level
from Advocate to 'Senior Advocate', it
requires an appreciation and recognition
by Court to the eminence, learnedness,
3 All. Vivek Kumar Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
1243
depth of legal knowledge, Court craft and
conduct, manner and purity demonstrated
by an Advocate in his practice at the Bar,
not only towards the client but to the
Court also and similar other aspects.

20. We do not intend to delve into
matter further to the self-assessed merit of
petitioner as it may prejudice his matter in
future also but so far as the present writ
petition is concerned, we are satisfied that
there is no illegality in the procedure
followed by Court in designating 75
'Senior Advocates' by notification in
question
and
apparently
there
is
substantial compliance of rules, therefore,
no interference is called for.

21. Writ petition is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
----------

(2019)11ILR A1243

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ C No.- 23031 of 2019

Vivek Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anjali Sinha, Sri Krishna Kant Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law-The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 56 (1A) - Stay Application u/s 56
(1-A) in Appeal - disputed amount to be
paid is - 1/3rd of deficiency assessed along
with interest u/s 40 (1-A)-and not 1/3rd of
penalty imposed which will be excessivewill become difficult to file Appeal. Proviso
to
move
stay
Application
in
Appeal-
misinterpreted.

Writ Petition disposed of (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
with a prayer that the recovery citation
issued on 10.6.2019 by the Tehsildar,
Tehsil
-
Anupshahar,
District
-
Bulandshahar, in pursuance of the order
dated 30.5.2019 passed by the District -
Magistrate, District - Bulandshahar, in
Case No. D201911170000833 (State of
U.P. vs. Vivek Kumar) under Section
33/47A of Indian Stamp Act 1899, passed
on 20.4.2010 be quashed.

2. The learned counsel for the
petitioner assailed the recovery certificate
on the ground that the amount which was
payable by the petitioner under order
dated 30.5.2019 could not be made
payable by the petitioner as it was
excessively high. He submits that not
only was the deficiency of stamp
calculated wrongly but the penalty of Rs.
18,00,000/- was calculated in a most
malafide manner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further stated that when he had filed the
appeal before the respondent no. 2, the
Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Meerut
Division, Meerut, then the recovery ought
to be stayed. He further submits that the
Stay Application as is conceived under
Section 56(1A) of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899, could not be filed by him as the
Appellate Court was demanding 1/3rd of
the total amount which was recoverable
under the order dated 30.5.2019.