Bombay High Court

SANTOSH UTTAMRAO UPAREversusCHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HRD DEPT. AND ORS

Decided: 2 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: RAVINDRA V GHUGE ABHAY MANTRI

Holding

The Court may cancel a party's permission to appear in person if the party breaches the condition of maintaining court decorum.

Summary

The petitioner, Santosh Upare, was initially denied permission to appear in person by a committee report but the High Court later allowed him to do so on the condition of proper conduct. After hearing the petition, the Court admitted the writ petition and refused interim relief. The petitioner subsequently filed an interim application challenging the Vakalatnama of the respondents' counsel, alleging they were not authorized to appear. The Court observed that the petitioner’s challenge was discourteous and unethical, constituting a breach of the condition imposed earlier. Consequently, the Court withdrew the permission previously granted to the petitioner to appear in person, directing him to engage counsel for future appearances.

Issues considered

What authority does the Court have to withdraw previously granted permission for a party to appear in person?
Whether a petitioner can challenge the validity of a Vakalatnama filed by respondents' advocates without a complaint from the respondents.

Subjects

court decorum
permission to appear in person
Vakalatnama
ethical conduct
interim application

Judgment

                                                        2-IA-761-2026.odt




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                INTERIM APPLICATION NO.761 OF 2026
                                IN
                   WRIT PETITION NO.12048 OF 2025

Santosh s/o Uttamrao Upare                       ….Applicant
            Versus
Hon’ble Chief General Manager HRD
Dept. & Ors .                                    ….Respondents
                                ----
Mr. Santosh Uttamrao Upare (Applicant), party-in-person, present in
Court.
Mr. Ashok D. Shetty, Advocate for the Respondents.
                               ----
                            CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
                                    ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
                            DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2026

P.C. :-


1.               On 10th November, 2025, we have recorded in

Paragraph No.1 of our order that the Committee of the learned

Registrars (who are Judicial Officers), has tendered a report dated

26th September, 2025, concluding that the overall capability of the

Petitioner has been ascertained and that he should not be granted

permission to appear before the Court in person. He would not be

able to assist the Court.



Kartikeya                       1 of 3
                                                              2-IA-761-2026.odt




2.              Despite the above, we permitted him to appear before

us in person, which we have recorded in Paragraph No.2. We had

struck a note of caution to the Petitioner that he should conduct

himself properly, in Paragraph No.3 of the order, which reads as

under :



            “3.        On the condition that the Petitioner would
            conduct himself in accordance with court manners
            and etiquette and maintain the dignity and decorum
            of the Court, as well as, of the lawyers appearing on
            behalf of the Respondents, we are permitting him to
            address the Court. We clarify that if there is a single
            instance of misbehaviour in the Court or the
            Petitioner acts discourteously in relations to the
            colleague advocates or the Court, we would restrain
            his appearance, thereafter.”



3.              After hearing the Petitioner for quite some time, we

assessed his case prima facie on its merits and admitted the Petition

by refusing interim relief, and when we passed the order dated 10 th

November, 2025.



4.              Today, the Petitioner has tendered            an Interim

Application, challenging the Vakalatnama of learned Advocate Mr.



Kartikeya                            2 of 3
                                                           2-IA-761-2026.odt




Ashok D. Shetty and Advocate Ms. Rita K. Joshi, who have

appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 9. It is further prayed

that these lawyers should not be allowed to appear in the matter and

action should be taken. We find that none of these Respondents have

complained before us, either through any other lawyer or for making

a grievance that the said learned Advocates have not been

authorized to appear on their behalf.



5.          We had permitted the Petitioner to appear in person by

cautioning him that he should watch his conduct. Noticing that he

has now started questioning the Vakalatnama of the Respondent

Advocates, we find that this is not only discourteous, but unethical.



6.          In view of the above, we withdraw the permission

granted to the Petitioner to appear in person, and the request to

appear in person stands cancelled. The Petitioner is at liberty to

engage an Advocate to appear on his behalf in these matters.




(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)                   (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)




Kartikeya                        3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…