Bombay High Court
NAMRATA GAWDEversusANNA STEELE
- Disposal
- Disposed of
Holding
The Court held that the DLSA’s order was invalid as it violated natural justice and was unsupported by evidence, and therefore the adverse observations must be expunged and the advocate entitled to remuneration as per the regulations.
Summary
Ms. Namrata Gawde, an advocate empanelled by the North Goa District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), was removed from a criminal case and other matters after a complaint by Anna Steele alleging she had taken Rs 15,000 to file a civil suit for a UK national and refused to refund it. The DLSA Chairman, invoking Rules 8(14) and 8(17) of the National Legal Services Authority (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations, 2010, ordered her discontinuation from the case and directed that she receive only 50 % of the remuneration for the withdrawn matters. Gawde challenged the order, contending a breach of natural‑justice principles, lack of hearing, absence of evidence of misconduct and that the order was ultra vires. The High Court held that the DLSA had not afforded a hearing, the allegations were unsupported, and the order therefore could not stand. It directed that the adverse observations be expunged, the DLSA release the 50 % remuneration upon disposal of the cases, and consider her re‑empanelment without prejudice. The writ petition and the related civil applications were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the DLSA’s order removing the advocate violated the principles of natural justice.
- Whether there was sufficient evidence of professional misconduct to justify the removal.
- Whether the DLSA acted within its jurisdiction and powers under the NLSA Regulations.
- Whether the advocate is entitled to 50 % of remuneration immediately or only upon disposal of the withdrawn cases.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- legal aid
- natural justice
- professional misconduct
- removal from panel
- remuneration
- NLSA Regulations
- defamation
- empanelment
- jurisdiction
- ultra vires
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1762
(1) WP-497-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.497 OF 2025
WITH
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.86 OF 2026
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.72 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.497 OF 2025
NAMRATA GAWDE
VERSUS
ANNA STEELE AND ANOTHER
…
Ms. Namrata Gawde, Petitioner in person.
Mr. Abhishek Sawant, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Maria Correia, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent
No.2.
…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2026.
FINAL ORDER:-
1. The petitioner impugns order dated 08.09.2025 passed by
Chairman DLSA/Principal District Judge, Merces in Enquiry with
regard to complaint of Mrs. Anna Steele against petitioner in CRRA
No.58/2022 before DJ-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, so
also seeks to reject complaint dated 26.08.2024 and direct North Goa
District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to pay compensation for
financial loss suffered by petitioner with further direction to reinstate
her on legal aid panel and allot matters.
2. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. She was empaneled by
District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), North Goa. She was
appointed by DLSA to represent respondent no.1, who is foreign
(2) WP-497-2025.odt
national in CRRA No.58/2022 pending before DJ-1 and Additional
Sessions Judge, Mapusa. The respondent no.1 made complaint with
DLSA against petitioner alleging that petitioner offered her to file Civil
Suit on behalf of Mr. Gary Wilson (UK National) regarding his property
at Anjuna, Bardez, Goa. She received Rs.15,000/- for filing private
Civil Suit. Later on, Mr. Gary Wilson decided not to file suit and
claimed refund of Rs.15,000/- to which petitioner refused citing reason
that work already performed. The respondent no.1 alleges that
petitioner acted unprofessionally, so also refused to return of advanced
payment.
3. The acting upon aforesaid complaint, impugned order came to be
passed by Chairman DLSA/Principal District Judge, Merces observing
that petitioner acted negligently while not attending grievance of
respondent no.1. Eventually, issued directions under Rule 8(14) and (17)
of National Legal Services Authority (Free and Competent Legal
Services) Regulations, 2010 to discontinue services of petitioner in
CRRA No.58/2022 and withdraw other cases allotted to her. The
petitioner was held entitled for remuneration to the extent of 50% for
cases withdrawn from her.
4. Ms. Namrata Gawade/petitioner submitted that impugned order is
passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was
not given opportunity of hearing nor material tendered by her in defence
(3) WP-497-2025.odt
is given consideration. The action is taken for alleged neglect of
petitioner in performance of her duty in relation to her engagement in
private matter, which was unconcerned with DLSA. The order
impugned is ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has
been unnecessarily defamed and made to suffer mental torture for which
she needs to be compensated.
5. On 30.04.2026, when this matter was heard by this Court (Coram:
Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.), Mrs. Maria Correia, learned Advocate appearing
for respondent no.2-Member Secretary, North Goa Legal Services
Authority on instruction made statement that Authority is ready and
willing to expunge the adverse observations makes in impugned order
against petitioner. So also, if petitioner made an application for her
empanelment on DSLA, Authority will consider same on its own merits.
However, petitioner expressed willingness to continue with matter on
merit, particularly because she has been deprived of her remuneration in
respect of 16 matters, which were withdrawn from her deference to
impugned order.
6. Today, this Court again heard petitioner and Mrs. Maria Curreia,
learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2. It is informed on
behalf of DLSA that petitioner’s entitlement to receive 50% of
remuneration amount towards 16 cases withdrawn from her has been
acknowledged under impugned order. However, as per procedure,
(4) WP-497-2025.odt
remuneration would be payable on disposal of respective cases, which
are presently handled by other panel Advocate. The petitioner do not
dispute that remuneration is payable only on disposal of matters.
However, according to her, respondent no.2 has abruptly ordered
premature withdrawal of cases handled by her, hence, atleast 50%
remuneration ought to have been immediately released.
7. This Court finds that action taken against petitioner under
impugned order cannot be countenanced, firstly for reason that she was
not given sufficient opportunity of hearing, secondly action is not taken
in pursuance to any default in conduct of case allotted by DLSA.
Further, allegations made in complaint that petitioner received amount
of Rs.15,000/- from respondent no.1 were not supported by evidence,
eventually impugned order itself exonerates petitioner to that extent.
The text of impugned order sans reason to brand petitioner’s conduct as
unprofessional or negligent in any manner.
8. In this backdrop, as agreed on behalf of respondent no.2, adverse
remarks against petitioner shall be expunged. Apart from that,
respondent no.2 shall release 50% of remuneration amount to petitioner
on disposal of respective cases withdrawn from her. The respondent
no.2 shall also consider petitioner’s application for empanelment
without impeded or influenced by observations in impugned order.
(5) WP-497-2025.odt
9. Writ Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
10. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, pending Civil Applications
also stand disposed of.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/August-2026
Checking your session…