A lawyer filed a writ petition in person seeking mandamus against Bar Councils and police authorities regarding his representations. Observing that lawyers must not step into litigants' shoes and no legal right was shown, the court permitted withdrawal and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP.No.39833 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.No.39833 of 2024
and
W.M.P.No.43168 of 2024
L.K.Charles Alexander ... Petitioner/party-in-person
Vs.
Page 1 of 6
WP.No.39833 of 2024
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th & 6th respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's email representation dated 26.11.2024 and registered post representation dated 27.11.2024 within the stipulated time.
Page 2 of 6
WP.No.39833 of 2024
| For Petitioner | : Mr.L.K.Charles Alexander |
|---|---|
| [Party-in-Person] | |
| For Respondents | : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar Standing Counsel for Bar Council of Tamil Nadu [For R2] : Mr.P.Balathandayutham |
| Special Government Pleader [For R3 & R4] : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj |
|
| Additional Public Prosecutor [For R5 to R7] |
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )
The party-in-person would not able to establish any semblance of
legal right for entertaining the writ petition.
Lawyer has to defend the case of his/her client in the manner known to law and as per the procedures contemplated. Developing any personal conflict either with the Police Authorities or with the Public Authorities are highly unwarranted. While representing the case, the Lawyers have got duty towards Court, Colleagues and clients. That being so, if any specific grievance exist, it is to be redressed in the manner known to law.
Page 3 of 6
WP.No.39833 of 2024
Accepting the same, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn . No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.] 07.01.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No veda To
Page 4 of 6
WP.No.39833 of 2024
4.
Page 5 of 6
WP.No.39833 of 2024
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
veda
W.P.No.39833 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.43168 of 2024
07.01.2025
Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the party-in-person petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus directing authorities to consider his representations dated 26.11.2024 and 27.11.2024.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
L.K.Charles Alexander
The Bar Council of India
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu
The Secretary to Law Department, Law Department, Government of Tamil Nadu
The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Department
S.M.Subramaniam
M.Jothiraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
