The High Court of Allahabad strongly refused to issue a writ of mandamus to the State to provide for the payment of electricity dues of the petitioner, which is the District Bar Association of Basti, Uttar Pradesh. The Court agreed that the lawyers who appear before the Court remain officers of the Court, and by their very nature of the work, they contribute to the judicial decision-making process.
However, such a contribution shall not be the basis to conclude that minimum facilities of electricity and other utilities and finances of the Bar may be provided at the cost of the State exchequer, added the Court.
The Court clarified that, to an extent, lawyers largely remain a body of private practitioners, and they form Associations to protect their interests and further their common objectives. Thus, they themselves would have to share the responsibilities of paying for the facilities that they use.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed that no statutory duty exists on the State to either pay for arrears or the future dues of the electricity being claimed by the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited against use of electricity by members or by the Civil Bar Association, Basti.
The Bench dissented from the ruling given by the Apex Court in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association and Others vs. B.D. Kaushik [(2011) 13 SCC 774], to clarify that the reference of advocates as officers of the Court by the Apex Court cannot be extended to create a duty on the State Government to pay for the electricity dues of the petitioner.
The Bench therefore dismissed the petition filed by the Civil Bar Association, Basti, seeking a writ of mandamus to the State of U.P. to bear the cost of electricity consumed by the bar building, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the State Government, as also to pay up the balance electricity dues and current dues in such manner and in such time as it may be advised.
Case Dissented:
Supreme Court Bar Association and Others vs. B.D. Kaushik [(2011) 13 SCC 774]
Case Distinguished:
Vinod Kumar Bharadwaj vs. State of M.P. and Others [AIR 2013 (MP) 145]
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Arun Kumar Gupta, along with Advocate Ashutosh Pandey, for the Petitioners
Advocates Mukul Tripathi and Ashish Mishra, for the Respondent
