Bombay High Court

Janardan S EklahareversusThe Secretary District Legal Services Authority Ahmednagar

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority may replace a panel advocate without hearing the advocate, as such replacement is not a disciplinary action and does not contravene natural justice.

Summary

The petitioner, a practicing advocate, was appointed as a panel lawyer by the Ahmednagar District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to handle a legal aid case (PA/114/2021). In June 2025, the DLSA, without notice or a hearing, replaced him with another advocate after the litigant complained about the petitioner’s availability and requested a lady advocate. The petitioner challenged the replacement, arguing that it violated natural justice and that any disciplinary action should be taken by the State Bar Council under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The High Court held that the DLSA’s substitution was not a disciplinary measure but a permissible administrative step to address the litigant’s compatibility concerns, and that the earlier appointed advocate has no vested right to continue representation. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.

Issues considered

Whether the District Legal Services Authority can unilaterally replace a panel advocate without giving the advocate a hearing.
Whether such replacement amounts to a disciplinary action violating the principles of natural justice.
Whether the petitioner’s grievance should be addressed by the State Bar Council under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Legislation cited

Advocates Act, 1961 — s. 35

Subjects

Legal aid
Panel advocate
District Legal Services Authority
Natural justice
Writ of certiorari
Writ of mandamus
Advocates Act 1961
Section 35
Litigant compatibility

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:7931
wp-349-2026.odt
(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 349 OF 2026

Janardan s/o Shivmurti Eklahare
Age-73 Years occupation- Advocate,
R/o 46, Opp Sai Enjel School, Vakil Colony,
Tawale Nagar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Road, Savedi, Ahilyanagar-414003.
Mob. No. 9511268045 ..Petitioner

VERSUS

1] The Secretary District Legal Services
Authority, Ahmednagar.
Office at New District Court Building,
DSP Chowk, Nayanagar, Ahmednagar-414001

2] Smt. Asha Balu Gondhale
Age- 30 years Occupation- Advocate
R/o. Neelkranti Chowk, Balikshram Road,
Behind Law College, Ahilyanagar-414001.

3] Smt. Ashwini @ Vedika Prasad Jarbandi,
Age-30 years Occupation- Household
C/o. Dnyaneshwar Piraji Bijja, Padmanagar
Maldar Road, Sangamner, Dist. Ahilyanagar.

4] The Principal District and Sessions Judge
And Chairperson, District Legal Services Authority,
D.S.P. Chowk, New Court Building, Ahmednagar-414001.

5] Principal Judge,
Family Court, Old Court Building, Nalegaon,
Ahmednagar-414001.
(Respondent No. 4 and 5 are formal parties,
hence notices may not be served) ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Eklahare
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATED : JANUARY 17, 2026

FINAL ORDER :-

1. Heard learned advocate appearing for petitioner.
wp-349-2026.odt
(2)

2. The petitioner filed present writ petition with following

prayers :

“[B] Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, quashing and setting aside the illegal
actions/orders of Respondent No. 1 appointing respondent No.
2 Advocate in place of the petitioner.
[C] Issue of writ of Mandamus directions to the respondent
No.1 to restore the petitioner as an Advocate of respondent No.
3 and to act strictly in accordance with law.”

3. The petitioner is a practicing advocate and he has been

appointed as panel advocate by District Legal Services Authority,

Ahmednagar w.e.f. 26.11.2021. The petitioner was entrusted with

Case No. PA/114/2021 during the period from 22.12.2021 to

17.06.2025. According to petitioner, he was actively and diligently

representing the party in the matter assigned to him. However,

respondent no.1 – District Legal Services Authority without issuing

notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing, assigned the

matter to another advocate i.e. respondent no.2 in place of petitioner

vide Order No.1762/2025 dated 23.06.2025. According to petitioner,

respondent no.1 processed unsigned application of respondent no.3

which contained defamatory attributions against him. As such, there

is gross violation of principles of natural justice. Although, petitioner

raised grievance about unilateral action of respondent no.1, no steps

are taken for redressal of his grievance.
wp-349-2026.odt
(3)

4. The petitioner/party in person raised two fold

contentions. According to him, if respondent no.3 had any complaint

regarding conduct of petitioner/advocate, the action could have been

taken only by Committee of State Bar Council as prescribed under

Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961. The respondent no.1 could not

have unilaterally withdrawn petitioner’s appearance in the case

allotted to him and could not have appointed respondent no.2 to

represent respondent no.3 without giving opportunity of hearing to

petitioner.

5. Having considered submissions advanced by

petitioner/party in person and on perusal of record tendered before

this Court, apparently, the petitioner is a panel advocate of District

Legal Services Authority, Ahmednagar and he was appointed by Order

No.1762/2025 to conduct Case No. PA/114/2021 on behalf of

respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 made an application dated

18.06.2025 to respondent no.1 seeking change of advocate. She has

simply stated that she is not happy with the conduct of her case. The

petitioner/advocate being senior/advanced age person could not

present himself on the dates and time fixed by Court. Therefore, she

requested to appoint a lady advocate to represent her. The aforesaid

representation was acted upon and without attributing any

misconduct or allegations against the petitioner, respondent no.2 is

appointed to represent respondent no.3.
wp-349-2026.odt
(4)

6. This Court finds that appointment of respondent no.2 to

represent respondent no.3 in place of petitioner cannot be termed as

disciplinary action. In cases, where litigant has problem of

compatibility of advocate appointed by Legal Services Authority, there

is no bar for the Secretary, Legal Services Authority to take necessary

steps and entrust the case to some other panel advocate. In such

cases, advocate who is firstly appointed to represent the litigant

cannot have vested right to continue to represent the litigant.

7. The Secretary, Legal Services Authority can definitely

entertain the grievance of litigant regarding compatibility of advocate

appointed and take corrective steps to redress grievance of litigant. In

such cases, it is not necessary for the Secretary, Legal Services

Authority to hear advocate appointed earlier or obtain his no

objection before appointing another panel advocate to represent

litigant. Such action on the part of Legal Services Authority can never

be treated as disciplinary action or penal action or detrimental to the

reputation of advocate appointed earlier for representing litigant. If

an advocate is appointed under Legal Aid Scheme to provide free

legal services to the beneficiary litigant, no advocate can have lien

over the brief entrusted to him. The Legal Services Authority, in

appropriate cases, appoint another panel advocate in interest of

beneficiary litigant.
wp-349-2026.odt
(5)

8. This Court do not find any merit in writ petition. Hence,

writ petition stands rejected.

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

Mujaheed//

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…