Case Law Details
Dhanlaxmi Chandu Vs Town Planning and Acquisition Officer (Bombay High Court)
Facts- It is alleged by Samina Arif Khan @ Dhanlaxmi Chandrakant Devrukhkar (‘Samina’) to place the Intervention Application for urgent hearing and orders since according to Samina, Advocate Shri Rohan Barge and Notary – Shri S.M. Naqvi alongwith an unknown person have filed Writ Petition No.4947 of 2021 before this Court in the name of Samina, seeking reliefs against the Town Planning / Land Acquisition Officer, Malad and Others, without her consent, knowledge and authority, thereby committing offences of cheating, fraud, impersonation and forgery against her and also this Court.
The captioned Intervention Application along with Writ Petition No.4947 of 2021 were placed on Board before this Court on 4th October, 2021. On that day, the Advocate representing – Samina reiterated that Samina had not given any instructions to Advocate Rohan Barge to file the captioned Writ Petition. It was also submitted that after Samina’s Advocate obtained a certified copy of Writ Petition No. 4947 of 2021 filed in her name by Advocate Rohan Barge, she noted that the signature after the prayer clause and under the verification clause at pages 11 and 12 respectively of the Writ Petition, are not hers. We therefore passed an Order directing Advocate Rohan Barge to remain present before us on the same day at 2.30 p.m. Since Advocate Rohan Barge was not present at 2.30 p.m., we directed him to remain present in Court on 5th October, 2021, at 2.30 p.m.
On 5th October, 2021 Advocate Rohan Barge was present before this Court along with one Mr. R.L.Agawane, a registered clerk and one Shri Sandeep S. Dharne. An Affidavit of Shri Sandeep Dharne was tendered in Court. In the said Affidavit, which was admittedly drafted by Advocate Rohan Barge, it was stated that in the month of January, 2020, Shri Dharne had approached the Registered Clerk Shri Agawane, who introduced him to Advocate Rohan Barge for filing the above Writ Petition before this Court; that in the meeting with Advocate Rohan Barge, Shri Dharne had appraised him of all the facts in the matter, including the fact that Shri Dharne had with him the Power of Attorney executed in his favour by Samina in the year 2005; that he (Shri Dharne) had contacted Samina and sought her confirmation to file the captioned Writ Petition before this Court; that after the said Writ Petition was drafted by Advocate Barge, Shri Agawane, Registered Clerk, called Mr. Dharne “for presenting the client before the High Court for Notary purpose.” Shri Agawane thereupon read over the contents of the Writ Petition and the said Writ Petition was handed over to him (Shri Dharne) by Shri Agawane “for notary purpose for identification”; that since Samina was hospitalised, Shri Dharne signed the Writ Petition on her behalf and the said fact was not disclosed to Advocate Barge or Shri Agawane; that he was having power of attorney of Samina “for filing all documents in Revenue Departments and Government purposes and also for attending all Courts of Law”; that he inadvertently signed the Writ Petition on behalf of Samina; that Samina has filed the above Writ Petition recording the facts which are incorrect only because she has not paid the legal fees for the matter which Shri Dharane attended on her behalf in revenue court’s and therefore, “he do not have prime role in the Writ Petition.”
Accordingly, show cause notices were issued to Advocate Naqvi as well as to Shri Dharne and Suo Motu Criminal Contempt Petition No.1 of 2021 was registered against them.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
