Rajesh Madhukar Kadam v. The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai And 10 ORS.

ary Before: Shri S. S. Agate Addl. Registrar (O.S.) / Addl. Prothonotary and Senior Master Date : 13th December, 2024.

CALLED FOR DIRECTION :

1. Chol/540/2024 in WP/1483/2021 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Mr. Rajesh M. Kadam, Applicant/Petitioner present in person.

Ms. Manisha Gawde, AGP for Respondent No. 1 - State of Maharashtra.

P.C.:

1. This Chamber Order is taken out by Applicant/Petitioner, for discharge of Advocate Amit Kumar Tiwari in Writ Petition No. 1483 of 2021.

2. The applicant has filed Affidavit of service dated 10.12.2024. Inspite of service, today no one is present on behalf of Advocate, Amit Kumar Tiwari.

3. Perused Chamber Order and Affidavit in support thereof. Paragraphs - 2 to 4 are relevant which are reproduced here under;

"x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

2. That the Applicant had engaged Mr. Amit Tiwari Advocate in the captioned Writ Petition, praying for inter alia reliefs pertaining to the Writ Petition. That at the stage of filing of the captioned Writ Petition, the Advocate concerned had communicated his fees orally which was duly accepted by the Applicant herein. That in terms of the aforesaid oral discussion, the Applicant deposited a sum of Rs, 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) at the office of the Advocate for the purposes of drafting and filing of the Writ Petition in terms of the quote of fees.

3. Th t the Applicant states that despite the ạ payment of fees, the said Advocate did not cooperate with the Applicant, and did not take steps to proceed with the Writ Petition. Despite several

requests, the Advocate demanded further fees beyond what was mutually agreed by way of the quote raised by the Advocate. The Applicant states that he was not even provided with a proper final copy of the Petition that was filed before the Hon'ble Court.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

4. That finding no recourse, the Applicant was constrained to serve a notice upon the Advocate through, inter alia, calling upon him to discharge himself from the matter so as to enable the Applicant to engage a different advocate. In response to the said email, the Advocate. Hereto annexed as Exhibit - A said letter dated 28.06.2024. The said letter was duly served upon advocate of the petitioner by Speed Post A.D. Till date, there is no reply t the said letter dated 28.06.2024."

4. I am satisfied that the Ld. Advocate has substantially complied with the procedure for obtaining discharge under High Court, Original Side Rules read with the provisions and Rules framed under the Advocates Act.

5.

In view of above, Chamber Order is allowed and signed separately. Advocate, Amit Tiwari, has been discharged on behalf of Petitioner, Rajesh Madhukar Kadam in Writ Petition No. 1483 of 2021. Office to delete the name of Advocate, Amit Tiwari as Advocate for the Defendant in Writ Petition No. 1483 of 2021. Petitioner, Rajesh Madhukar Kadam to communicate this Order to Advocate, Amit Tiwari and thereafter, Petitioner to engage another Advocate, if he so desires.

6.

Chamber Order is disposed of accordingly.

13.12.2024 Addl. Registrar (O.S.) / Addl. Prothonotary and Senior Master