The Court made these observations while hearing a petition moved by a lawyer practicing in Kottayam who was appointed as an advocate commissioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kottayam to take possession of scheduled premises.
She received a batta of ₹8,500, following which she visited the premises on three separate occasions, accompanied by officers of the concerned bank. On the third visit, the officials allegedly requested the petitioner to take partial possession.
However, when the case was called, the bank told the magistrate that the petitioner had only taken partial possession of the secured asset without their consensus.
The petitioner was allegedly taken aback by what transpired before the magistrate and, therefore, informed the bank that she would not be able to complete taking possession.
She surrendered her commission warrant and the magistrate directed her to remit the balance batta. However, since she had visited the premises thrice, the petitioner said that there was no balance amount.
The bank filed an objection to this, and ultimately the magistrate passed an order directing the petitioner to return ₹2,500 out of the total ₹8,500 that she had received. The magistrate also ordered the removal of the petitioner’s name from the commission panel of the court.
This prompted the petitioner to move the High Court contending that this order of the Magistrate was unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal.
“The impugned order demonstrates a clear disregard for the legal principles governing the appointment and duties of advocate commissioners, setting a dangerious precedent for the administration of justice. The impugned order is unreasonable and in violation of principles of natural justice, as it penalises the petitioner without proper adjudication and consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case“, the petition stated.
Therefore, she sought orders from the High Court quashing the order of the magistrate.
Source: Barandbench
