Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors  Insc 216 (16 April 2001)
Thomas & R.P. Sethi Sethi, J.
by the orders passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Varanasi dated
13.2.2001 transferring a number of criminal cases for disposal to the
Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, the
petitioner-Advocate, representing the accused persons in three of such
transferred cases, filed a writ petition in the High Court praying for quashing
of the said order. It was contended that by the transfer of the cases, the
speedy trial of the accused has been hampered and that the order has been
passed in a casual manner. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court
holding that the petitioner being an advocate had no locus standi to challenge
the legality of the order by way of a writ petition.
speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is
not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have
neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger
of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated
ignoring the applicable rules.
relief under Article 226 of the constitution is based on the existence of a
right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the
general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas-
corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence,
that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal
wrong or legal injuries caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights
are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the
instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation
which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the
court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only
when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is
threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason or
poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged
position, unable to approach the court for relief.
instant case the petitioner had not filed the petition in public interest and
did not disclose the circumstances which prevented the affected persons from
approaching the court. In the discharge of his professional obligations, the
petitioner-advocate is not obliged to file the writ petition on behalf of his
clients. No circumstance was mentioned in the petition which allegedly
incapacitated the affected persons from filing the writ petition. Section 30 of
the Advocates Act, only entitles an advocate to practise the profession of law
and not to substitute himself for his client. The filing of the writ petition
in his own name, being not a part of the professional obligation of the
advocate, the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition holding
that the petitioner had no locus standi.
reliance of the learned counsel on Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. Chandrima
Das (Mrs.) & Ors. [2000 (2) SCC 465] is misplaced inasmuch as in that case
the writ petition had been filed in public interest where it was found on facts
that the affected person was not in a position to approach the court for the redressal
of her grievances.
is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.