Sunil Advt Mhc: Sir, Letter to the Chief Justice seeking relaxation in procedure for the Copy Application and Time bound cases. Sunil Prakash P.SUNIL B.E., M.L
[5/16, 12:47] Sekarreporter 1: Sunil Prakash (a.k.a) P.SUNIL B.E., M.L Office: No.13, D.R.K Lane, ADVOCATE Saidapet, Chennai-15
Mobile: 9043184900
To, Date: 16.05.2020
1) The Honorable Chief Justice,
Madras High Court
Chennai-104
2) Thiru C. Kumarappan,
Registrar General
Madras High Court
Chennai-104
e-mail: regrgenl@nic.in., cpc-tn@indianjudiciary.gov.in., hcourt@tn.nic.in
Sub: Requisition for the modification of the copy application procedure and flexibility of time bound matters.
My Lord,
Now that the whole country is moving towards normalcy and have started blitzing with the guarded securities, the Honble Courts are also anticipated to resume at the earliest with all the guarded securities as per My Lords instructions and additional respective directions from the Central / State Government if any. We at the Bar are more excited to join the Honble Courts by following all the necessary precautions.
In the present scenario, the advices given by the experts is to maintain social distancing, avoid unnecessary gathering and few others. After the Courts reopen the Copy Application Section in the Court campus is where the lawyers and clerks visit in large numbers on daily basis and maintaining social distancing and avoiding unnecessary gathering would be quite challenging with the prevailing procedure If it is being allowed to be followed without any modifications, it might create troublesome if it goes amiss.
Few scenario where the lawyers/clerks visit the copy application section:
1) To file a copy application either to receive interim orders, final orders, evidence, documents, pleadings and etc.
2) For the application already filed, to check for the call for to deposit of stamps as demanded by the section (if not deposited in three days, the said application gets struck off)
3) If its called for to deposit of stamps, thereafter necessary stamps is to be affixed on the application.
4) To check if the application is made ready.
5) In failure of depositing stamps as stated in point no.2, a new application is being filed to restore the struck off copy application (to save the limitation) which is not mandatory.
The moment the copy application is struck off, the court documents are sent back to the record section (if proceedings are disposed) or to the respective courts (if proceedings are pending).
In the disposed case, the case papers is being sent from record section to the copy application section and thereafter placed before the Honble Court to decide the application for restoration of call for.
In the above process of restoration, the presence of lawyer/clerk at all stages becomes necessary in moving the application from one section to another section. Even in other cases, considering the present prevailing situation it would become chaotic if existing procedure is not modified at the earliest since there are indirect restrictions on the movement of the public, psychological factor and etc.
Hence with Your Lordships permission I would like to place it before Your Lordships kind attention about the feasible method which might curtail from the chaotic scenario.
1) Either to remove the concept of struck off and call for instead the copies could be made ready and stamps to be made deposited while handing over. (Surviving concept in the Honble High Court) Which can be extended to all the other Courts.
2) Introduction of fee prevailing in the Honble High Court of Rs.35/- for each copy application in all other Courts as presently a copy application in all other Courts can be made even with one rupee stamp Reasoning If My Lord feels if copies are made ready without depositing of stamps and not collected by the applicant, the judiciary has to bear additional unnecessary expenses. To compensate in such situation an introduction of fee of any amount reasonable to be paid while filing copy application which will cut down frivolous copy applications if one tries to take undue advantage with callous attitude.
3) Since we are marching on par with the technology in last few years and in present scenario we have visualized new different practical approach use of technology, accordingly an additional feature of mobile / e-mail alerts could be used a tool to intimate the applicants if the copy application is made ready (such feature can also be extended to High Court) (it would curtail masses to verify with the section about the status of the copy application). The technology is already in place in the Honble High Court when an application or fresh proceedings is initiated, we sometimes receive update about the Filing Sr. No., Case No., and Listing of Cases before the Honble Court.
4) There is already existing feature to track copy application status in the Honble High Court via stand alone kiosk, the same may be extended to all the Courts as already the stand-alone kiosk is sited in all Courts.
5) If My Lords disagree with the above stated approach, the time frame for affixture of stamps after call for may be extended to 6 working days from the prevailing 3 days. The reasoning behind is one can at least check their status of the copy application once a week if its extended to 6 days on consideration with lawyers and clerks at large.
As excitement of joining the Bar at the earliest after the disturbed and unsecured scenario of life, we at the Bar are always ready to co-operate and give maximum disposal with the never ending support from the Bench. I might be anticipating that the time bound matters which might not be practicable in present phase. Hence I request My Lord to consider that the time bound case directions dont operate rigid and it be made flexible as ultimate aim to render justice might get defeated or couldnt be rendered because of the following reasons:
1) In all stages of the proceedings, the interaction between the client and the lawyer plays a crucial role, I anticipate in the present scenario that most of the litigants, lawyers and clerks are struck with fear psychosis and even their travels are restricted.
2) I would like to bring to your Lordships attention most of the advocates (either the residents of Chennai, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram, Thiruvallur) practice in various Courts at High Court of Madras, Alandur Court, Tambaram Court, Chengalpattu Court, Kancheepuram Court, Ambattur Court, Thiruvottiyur Court, Ponneri Court and Thiruvallur Court. There is no qualm as proceedings are chosen by a member of the Bar as per their wishes when there was normalcy but in the present crisis with most of them solely rely upon the public transportation and also there is no certain about the sufficient public transportation such as local trains and local bus. Even few of the sub-ordinate judges commute on daily basis from one district to other district.
3) Assuming if anything goes amiss to any member of the Bar or to any individual in the locality/street the member of the Bar resides, the entire street is being locked and all its residents are bound to home quarantine for two weeks because of the present pandemic situation.
4) Assuming if member of the Bar is struck up in their home town or other cities, the process of return back to the city and to attend Courts on regular basis would become tedious and also interstate rules are forced to be rigid. There is also no scope for normalcy of trains and buses in near time as it was before, as on date the person who make interstate travel are bound for home quarantine for two weeks.
Your Lordship with rich experience would have already formulated proper necessary procedure after duly considering the probabilities in the prevailing situation, I would like to bring it to Your Lordships kind attention by considering the members of the judiciary at large. I am deeply obliged to Your Lordship in extending the facility of payment of Court fee through e-payment and suitably the act has also been amended in the swiftest interval.
Yours Faithfully,
SUNIL PRAKASH (aka) P. SUNIL
