Full Judgment
M. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. N. Rai learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent-State Election Commission to re-allocate the work of the Commission amongst the standing counsels of the Commission by just reasonable, fair order of allocation of work of the Commission and further not insist upon the petitioner to handover the files of pending cases to another counsel and to pay the unpaid past expenses of the certified copies of the final orders, and fee etc.
3. In our view, it is the discretion of the client to choose his counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Damodardass Aqarwal and Ors. v. Badrilal and Ors., AIR 1987 AP 254 (DB), in which it was held that the leave of the Court is necessary for the client for terminating the appointment of his advocate. We respectfully disagree with the view taken in the aforesaid decision. In our opinion, the relationship between a litigant and a lawyer is purely, contractual, and it can be terminated at any time by the litigant, and the only remedy of the lawyer for claiming the fee, etc. is to file a civil suit but he cannot insist that without leave of the Court his engagement as a lawyer cannot be terminated. In fact it would be derogatory to the noble profession of lawyers, if it is held that even if the litigant does not want to continue him as his lawyer, he cannot change his lawyer without leave of the Court. The Supreme Court in R. D. Saxena v. B. P. Sharma, 2000 (4) AWC 2965 (SC) : 2000 (7) SCC 264, has held that refusal to return case files when demanded by the client amounts to professional misconduct. It was held that if a litigant wishes to change his counsel and goes to his earlier lawyer and asks him to handover the file of his case, then it is the duty of the lawyer to handover the file and he cannot insist that he will hand it over only after his fee is paid. It was also held therein that in litigant is free to change his lawyer, and the earlier lawyer can only sue for his fees or expenses.
4. In fact in the letter dated 19.2.2003, written by the petitioner to the State Election Commission, U.P. a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, he has stated that he will not be able to look after the cases of the Commission of three divisions.
5. In our opinion, there is nomerit in this writ petition. Therelationship between a lawyer and alitigant is purely contractual and if thepetitioner has any grievance about thepayment of fee or expenses of certifiedcopy of the order, etc., it will be opento him to file a civil suit. In this viewof the matter, the writ petition isdismissed.