Gujarat High Court Refuses To Let Lawyer Withdraw Plea Allegedly Aimed At 'Browbeating' Charity Commissioner

The Gujarat High Court refused to permit withdrawal of a petition moved by a lawyer and a trust, after the State alleged that the petitioners had attempted to browbeat the charity commissioner by making certain allegations questioning the appointment which had already been upheld by the court.

The court noted that the matter was not restricted to the present case but to instances where persons practicing before a particular Presiding Officer approach the High Court questioning their appointment when the appointment has been upheld, which is an "attempt by the petitioners to pressurize, browbeat and to blackmail the Presiding Officers into submission". 

The petition pertains to a service matter, wherein the State in its reply alleged that the petitioners had attempted to "browbeat and blackmail" Respondent Nos. 4 and 6, who came to be appointed as Joint Charity Commissioner, Class-I and assistant Charity Commissioner, Class-I, respectively, vide an order passed by the high court in 2022. The reply states that one of the prayers in the plea is against the regularization of respondent no. 4's services. 

On August 7 when the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner made a submission to withdraw the petition, the same was opposed by the government pleader who drew the court's attention to the State's reply affidavit where it was pointed out that the present petition is "not a one off attempt by the petitioners to browbeat the Presiding Officers".

The court noted that as per the affidavit, the petitioner has "consistently" attempted to browbeat the Presiding Officers referring to certain instances. 

Justice Nikhil S Kariel in his order thereafter said:

"Considering the fact that the issue in question is not restricted to the petitioners alone, since to this Court, it would appear that such petition where persons practicing before particular Presiding Officer seek to approach the High Court questioning their appointment etc. making certain allegations more particularly where such appointment has been upheld by this Court, would be nothing but an attempt by the petitioners to pressurize, browbeat and to blackmail the Presiding Officers into submission. Permitting such petitioners to withdraw the petition, to this Court, would send out wrong signals to the entire lower judiciary and whereas, this Court  exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would be loath to permit withdrawal of the petition. Hence, request made by learned Senior Advocate for permission to withdraw, is rejected". 

At this stage, the senior advocate submitted that his engagement in the matter was restricted insofar as making request for permission to withdraw the petition and since the Court has refused such request, he would no longer be appearing in the matter.

The counsel for the petitioner thereafter submitted that since the State's reply had been served upon him a day before the matter he would need time to take instruction as to whether a rejoinder is required or not.

"Considering such a request, list this matter on 14.08.2025. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed on or before 13.08.2025," the court said.

The state in its reply stated that the petitioner is an advocate who has been practicing before the Charity Commissioner. Petitioner 2 is a trust whereas petitioner 3 is its trustee. The reply claims that the petition is an abuse of law as in a 2024 plea the high court had vide an order passed in July 2024 directed the State Respondents to consider within 8 weeks, the petitioners' representation.

The reply claims that representation of Petitioner No. 1 came to be decided by a reasoned communication dated 18.09.2024, which has been challenged afresh in the present plea. 

The reply states that the petition has prayed that the services of Respondent No. 4 may not be regularized, when the appointment of respondent no. 4 as Assistant Charity Commissioner has already been tested on the anvil of Judicial scrutiny in a March 2, 2022 order passed by the high court in a 2020 plea. 

The matter is next listed on August 14.

Case title: ASHOK BHANUSHANKAR TRIVEDI & ORS. vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Click Here To Read/Download Order