High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna High Court Patna Through Its Secretary Shri Kishore Pras v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11599 of 2016 ====================================================== High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna High Court Patna through its Secretary Shri Kishore Prasad, Joint Registrar (Judicial)-cum- Secretary, Patna High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The High Court of Judicature at Patna through the Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna
3. The Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna
4. The Secretary, General Administrative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
5. Mrs. Reena Sinha, Advocate, Patna High Court, Patna
6. Lakshman Pal, Son of Sipahi Bhagat, Resident of Village - Bagahin, P.O. - Banahi, P.S.- Behea, District - Bhojpur .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) 2.
28-09-2016 This is a review application in the garb of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, calling upon this Court to review the final judgment and order passed by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 249 of 1992. Even though, such application is not maintainable, we have heard learned counsel for the Legal Services Authority. Their prayer is that their regulations provide for payment of only Rs. 500/- to the counsel engaged by them to appear on behalf of any person as a matter of legal aid. It is submitted that when the Court appointed amicus curiae in this case and the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11599 of 2016 (2) dt.28-09-2016 2/2 final hearing before Division Bench carried on for three days, the Court ought not to have awarded Rs. 7500/- (Rupee Seven Thousand and Five Hundred) in all (at the rate of Rs. 2500/- (Rupee Two Thousand and Five Hundred) per day) to the amicus curiae to be paid from the Legal Services Authority, we are not impressed. Legal Services Authority gets money also by way of various court's order which is not a part of its regulation, then, when a Court appoints amicus curiae and not an advocate through the Legal Services Authority. We do not find that the authority should have any difficulty in obeying the orders of the Court and that too of a paltry amount payable only at the rate of Rs. 2500/- (Rupee Two Thousand and Five Hundred) per day.
We, thus, find no merit in this application.
This application is dismissed, accordingly. If amount already not paid, be paid within a fortnight. Kundan/Rajeev (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) U T