Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajkumar, an advocate enrolled in the B-Panel of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Coimbatore, was allotted a Motor Accident Claims case (MCOP) to represent the fifth respondent, a legal aid beneficiary. The petitioner alleged that his expenses for filing vakalat were not reimbursed. On 12.01.2026, being unwell, he engaged his friend Murugan, also an advocate, to file vakalat on his behalf. The fifth respondent complained that Murugan demanded and received Rs.500 and later demanded Rs.2000 to conduct the case. Based on this complaint, the third respondent (Principal District Judge-cum-Chairman, DLSA) passed an order dated 02.03.2026 removing the petitioner from the B-Panel without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking certiorari to quash that order. The court noted that the petitioner had conducted over 30 legal aid cases without any prior complaint. The core legal issue was whether the removal order, passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, violated principles of natural justice. The respondents argued that the order was justified based on the complaint. The court held that the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, require that before any adverse action is taken against a person, he must be given a fair hearing. Since the impugned order was passed without any show cause notice or opportunity to the petitioner, it was unsustainable. The court quashed the order and remitted the matter back to the third respondent for fresh consideration after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Removal from Panel - The petitioner, an advocate on the B-Panel of the District Legal Services Authority, was removed based on a complaint of demanding money from a legal aid beneficiary without being given any opportunity to explain or defend himself. The court held that such an order, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. (Paras 1-5)
B) Legal Services - Panel of Advocates - Removal - Opportunity of Hearing - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - The court observed that before removing an advocate from the panel, the authority must issue a show cause notice and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The impugned order dated 02.03.2026 was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the third respondent for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order removing the petitioner from the B-Panel of Advocates of the District Legal Services Authority, Coimbatore, passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.03.2026 passed by the third respondent is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the third respondent for fresh consideration after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Audi Alteram Partem
- Legal Services Authorities Act
- 1987
- Writ of Certiorari
- Removal from Panel without Hearing
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (03) 74
WP No.10993 of 2026 and WMP No.11924 of 2026
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Chief Justice, G.Arul Murugan
For Petitioner: Mr. M.Saravanakumar; For R1: Mr. V.Vasanthakumar; For R2 to R4: Mr.S.Arokiamaniraj
1. The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai; 2. The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authority, Chennai; 3. The Principal District Judge cum Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Coimbatore; 4. The Secretary cum Sub Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Coimbatore; 5. C.Ganeshkumar S/o.Chinaraj
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order of removal from the B-Panel of Advocates of the District Legal Services Authority.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashment of the order dated 02.03.2026 passed by the third respondent removing him from the B-Panel of Advocates.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was removed from the B-Panel based on a complaint of demanding money from a legal aid beneficiary without being given any opportunity of hearing.
Previous Decisions
The third respondent passed the impugned order dated 02.03.2026 removing the petitioner from the B-Panel.
Issues
Whether the order removing the petitioner from the B-Panel of Advocates without affording an opportunity of hearing is violative of principles of natural justice.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that he was not given any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed, and that he had conducted over 30 legal aid cases without any complaint.
The respondents contended that the order was justified based on the complaint of the fifth respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
An order removing an advocate from the panel of a Legal Services Authority without affording an opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice and is unsustainable. The authority must issue a show cause notice and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking any adverse action.
Judgment Excerpts
Seeking quashment of the order dated 2.3.2026 passed by the third respondent, in and by which the petitioner was removed from the B-Panel of Advocates of the District Legal Services Authority, Coimbatore, the present writ petition is filed.
The nub of the matter is that the petitioner was allotted MCOP case by the fourth respondent to appear on behalf of the fifth respondent vide order dated 15.10.2025.
It is pleaded that the petitioner has conducted over 30 legal aid cases without any complaint from whomsoever, but based on the allegation levelled by the fifth respondent, the impugned order came to be passed.
The impugned order has been passed without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent for fresh consideration after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Procedural History
The petitioner was allotted a legal aid case on 15.10.2025. On 12.01.2026, his friend Murugan filed vakalat. The fifth respondent complained of demand for money. On 02.03.2026, the third respondent passed an order removing the petitioner from the B-Panel. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date, and the High Court disposed it on 24.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987:
