L.K.Charles Alexander v. The Bar Council Of India
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.
1.
The Bar Council of India, No.21, Rouse Avenue Institutional area, Near Bhal Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 002.
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, High Court Campus, Parrys, Chennai - 600 104.
3.
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
4.
The Secretary to Law Department, Law Department, 5.
The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Department, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai - 600 004.
6.
The Joint Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Camp Office, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai.
7.
Jyothilakshmi, The Inspector of Police, S-7, All Women Police Station, Madipakkam, Chennai.
... 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.
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. Lawyers are not expected to step into the shoes of the litigants. 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.
3.
When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the party-inperson made a submission that he will be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. He also made an endorsement in the case bundle to that effect. Accepting the same, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.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 :
Yes/No veda To 1.
The Bar Council of India, No.21, Rouse Avenue Institutional area, Near Bhal Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 002.
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, High Court Campus, Parrys, Chennai - 600 104.
3.
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
4.
The Secretary to Law Department, Law Department, 5.
The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Department, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai - 600 004.
6.
The Joint Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Camp Office, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai.
7.
The Inspector of Police, S-7, All Women Police Station, Madipakkam, Chennai.
8.
The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai - 104.
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