Nagpur: Upset of the Petitioner’s behavior approaching his lawyer in Pill, not Amicus Curiae, Nagpur bench from the Bombay High Court (HC) directed the registry to remove the name of the applicant from this case, reported Vaibhav Ganjapure.
His steps came to hear the request submitted by Ch Sharma and others, highlighting the lack of facilities in government medical and hospital medical colleges (GMCHS) in Vidarbha.
The bench was angry because of the fact that Prateek Sharma’s lawyer submitted Vakalat Nama on behalf of the first applicant in another capacity was also mentioned in this case.
HC asked the petition to move to a rope in a lawyer without approaching Amicus Curiae Anup Gilda, who was appointed by HC to beg this case.
“Why only Ch Sharma must decide to map the course, which is independent of the applicants left and when this petition is in the nature of the pill.
This case was submitted by the Applicant and Amicus Curiae has been appointed to provide comprehensive assistance,” the division bench consisting of Judge Sunil Shukre and annealed kilor.
Telling the Petitioner’s advice, the judges said they did not understand why he did not understand why he did not understand why he did not understand to beg the case when he had represented several applicants in the past intervention.
Quoting Gilda, they showed that in 2016, when Judge Bhushan Gavai led the bench, HC had verbally advised Prateek Sharma to have consultation and coordination with Amicus, if he had to submit anything in this matter.
“Regarding the charging of Vakalatnama and pursuing and making shipment, we did not find that there was a previous consultation and coordination with Amicus by advice.
We found that the behavior of the applicant might not be conducive to pills and therefore, it is necessary that he is forbidden to be above this case.” The judge added that in Pils, the applicant must join hands and not do anything by conflicting with the public interest.
“It will be the importance of justice that Ch Sharma no longer remains as a party for this pill.
Therefore, we immediately direct that it will be removed as the applicant for and the amendment is done,” said the bench before delaying hearing until June 30.
The High Court removed the Petitioner from PIL to appoint a lawyer without consulting Amicus
