“A litigant cannot make contact with the counsel for rival party,” the Allahabad High Court said, dismissing a writ petition with Rs 1 Lakh Costs after the petitioner society’s president sent a threatening letter to the respondents’ lawyer.
Prayagraj: A letter asking the opposing counsel to withdraw written submissions that had been filed on the Court’s own direction, a letter that the Court recorded also carried a threat, has ended with the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition of the Committee of Management of an Agra-based dharmshala society and imposing costs of Rs 1 lakh [Committee of Management, Katyawali Dharmshala Society and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others].
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery passed the order as a single-judge bench on October 27, 2026.
Dismissal within 72 hours
The Court’s operative direction was short:
“Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1 lakh. The petitioner shall pay the said amount within 72 hours in the High Court Bar Association, Allhabad.”
The letter before lunch
When the matter was taken up before lunch, Aklank Kumar Jain, counsel for the respondents, placed on record a letter signed by petitioner no. 2, Sri Niwas, President of the Committee of Management, Katyawali Dharmshala Society, Mohalla Bajhera, near Police Station Achhnera, Tehsil Kirawali, District Agra. The Court recorded that the letter was in the form of a legal notice asking the counsel to withdraw the written submissions filed on the Court’s direction, and that a threat had also been extended in it.
Advocate J.P. Singh, who had earlier appeared for the petitioners, told the Court that he had returned the brief in view of the petitioner’s conduct. The other counsel for the petitioners, Ratnesh Pratap Singh, was not present.
A warrant and a morning deadline
The Court said it took a serious view of the conduct of petitioner no. 2 and issued a non-bailable warrant against Sri Niwas through the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The Commissioner concerned was directed to ensure his presence before the Court at 12 noon the next day. The Registrar General was asked to remain present, and the newly elected Secretary of the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad was asked to ensure the presence of the petitioners’ counsel. The matter was to be put up on October 28, 2026.
An apology that did not settle it
At 4:15 PM the same day, the matter was taken up again. Sri Niwas appeared in person and said he had tendered an unconditional apology. The Court was not willing to condone what he had done:
“His conduct cannot be condoned. Even his counsel has not support his conduct. A litigant cannot make contact with the counsel for rival party.”
It chose a lenient course and did not start proceedings against the petitioner for obstructing the dispensation of justice, but said the act still had to be condemned:
“Even after observing above, in the interest of justice and taking a lenient view, the Court is not initiated proceeding against the petitioner for obstructing dispensation of justice, still it is necessary to condemn petitioner’s act, since he is not a bonafide litigant.”
Why the order matters
Written submissions filed at a court’s direction are part of the judicial record, and only the court can decide what becomes of them. A party who writes to the opposing lawyer demanding their withdrawal, and adds a threat, is not merely being discourteous but is reaching into the adjudicatory process itself. The order makes plain that a litigant has no business contacting the counsel for the other side, whatever form the communication takes.
The Court also showed the range of tools available against such conduct. It used a non-bailable warrant to secure the petitioner’s presence the same day, held back from initiating proceedings for obstruction of justice after he appeared and apologised, and instead dismissed the petition with substantial costs payable within 72 hours. An apology, the order signals, may soften the response but does not wipe out the consequences for a litigant found not to be bona fide.
Case Title: Committee of Management, Katyawali Dharmshala Society and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others [Writ-C No. 140 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: October 27, 2026
Counsel for Petitioners: J.P. Singh, Ratnesh Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondents: Aklank Kumar Jain, C.S.C., Dinesh Tiwari, Virendra Singh