The Gauhati High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 each upon two lawyers for signing the Vakalatnama on behalf of a non-existent petitioner in a frivolous case that lasted more than 6 years.
A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi made the observations, “What is astonishing is that the judicial process has been successfully taken for a ride for the last more than six years by instituting and continuing a case by a non-existing person. The role of the counsel who has appeared for the non-existing petitioner is absolutely important as the counsel had accepted the case of the petitioner by signing the Vakalatnama and taking all steps from time to time on behalf of the non-existing petitioner.”
The case’s facts show that Ms. Beolin Kharbhih, who claimed to be a distant relative of one Sankar Prasad Nath, a former deputy superintendent of police with the CID in Assam, filed the petition.
Kharbhih asserted that the said Officer was killed in a hit-and-run incident after being entrusted with some sensitive cases involving politically influential people from Assam and Meghalaya for which he was receiving threats. Even Sankar Prasad Nath’s wife, according to the petitioner, passed away in “mysterious circumstances,” but despite numerous complaints and filed police reports, nothing was done.
As a result, the current writ petition was filed in 2016 with up to 26 party respondents, one of whom was a sitting judge of the Meghalaya High Court.
The judge’s name was accordingly removed by the Court after it was determined that no specific allegations had been made against him. Investigations in the meantime showed there is no one by the name of Ms. Beolin Kharbhih (petitioner) in existence.
The status report submitted by the Government Advocate stated that even the CID was unable to identify the petitioner after conducting an investigation involving the review of CCTV footage, the locations of the businesses the petitioner claimed to be associated with, and newspaper advertisements.
As a result, the bench directed the petitioner’s counsel to arrange for the petitioner’s personal appearance. The Advocate for the petitioner after taking further time on several occasions, submitted before the court on March 9, 2023 that the notice issued to the petitioner by registered post had returned back with endorsement that “no such person”.
Therefore, the bench noted,
“It appears that the petition has been filed in a well planned manner from which it is apparent that there has been a conspiracy. The Vakalatnama which contains the signature of the petitioner is accepted by Shri HS Kalsi and Shri RS Sadiyal as Advocates…while the writ petition is dismissed, cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) Only is imposed upon each of the counsel who has signed the Vakalatnama for a non-existing petitioner.”
The bench further directed the Bar Councils of Assam, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram to look into the matter and take appropriate action against those responsible.
