( 2025:HHC:38715 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.718 of 2025 Date of Decision:- 13.11.2025 Kashmir Singh Thakur ....Appellant Versus Union of India & others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Appellant-Kashmir Singh Thakur, present in person with Mr. Harjeet Singh, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order dated 01.05.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2458 of 2025, titled Kashmir Singh Thakur Vs. Union of India and others of 2018, whereby the petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. 2. Resultantly, the learned Single Judge chose not to interfere with the letter dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure P-6), whereby cases entrusted to the present appellant were transferred to another Retainer Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) due to the administrative reasons. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. The reasoning which weighed with the learned Single Judge as such was that apparently, the present appellant was designated as Senior Advocate by this Court on 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-5) but there was no order of de-notifying the appointment of the present appellant for Special Public Prosecutor, on the strength of which he had approached the Court. There was no bar for the present appellant to be engaged as Senior Counsel and either to defend the cases relating to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Therefore, no orders of interference were passed in the petition. 4. We are of the considered opinion that there is no such lacunae as such in the order passed by the learned Single Judge which would require any interference. 5. The present appellant has been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor on 23.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) for a period of three years by the Government of India. His appointment as such continues to hold with the respondents who have assigned the work to the other Retainer Counsel for administrative reasons would not warrant interference by this Court as such. 6. It is also to be noticed that as per the restrictions on Senior Counsel(s) also, in view of the provisions of Section 16 of the “The Advocates Act, 1961” (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), which provides that there shall be two classes of Advocates, 3 namely, Senior Advocates and other Advocates. Sub-Clause (3) provides that senior advocates shall, in the matter of their practice, be subject to such restrictions as the Bar Council of India may, in the interest of legal profession, prescribe. 7. It has been brought to our notice that Chapter-I Part-VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, as such also further provide that a Senior Advocate is not to file any vakaltnama or act in any Court, or Tribunal, or before any person or other authority mentioned in Section 30 of the ‘Act’. The said Rules further provide that a Senior Advocate shall not appear without an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court or without an Advocate in Part II of the State Roll in any Court or Tribunal or before any person or other authorities mentioned in Section 30 of the ‘Act’. Thus, it is apparent that there is requirement as such that Senior Counsel will have to appear alongwith another Advocate. 8. In such circumstances, for various administrative exigencies which are apparent, the respondent agency has felt that the work has to be entrusted to a counsel other than the Senior Counsel and it is not for this Court as such to interfere. 9. Resultantly, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order dated 01.05.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed in limini accordingly. 4 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge 13th November, 2025 (munish thakur)