(1) WP-497-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.497 OF 2025 WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.86 OF 2026 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.72 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.497 OF 2025 NAMRATA GAWDE VERSUS ANNA STEELE AND ANOTHER … Ms. Namrata Gawde, Petitioner in person. Mr. Abhishek Sawant, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Ms. Maria Correia, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.2. … CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2026. FINAL ORDER :- 1. The petitioner impugns order dated 08.09.2025 passed by Chairman DLSA/Principal District Judge, Merces in Enquiry with regard to complaint of Mrs. Anna Steele against petitioner in CRRA No.58/2022 before DJ-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, so also seeks to reject complaint dated 26.08.2024 and direct North Goa District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to pay compensation for financial loss suffered by petitioner with further direction to reinstate her on legal aid panel and allot matters. 2. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. She was empaneled by District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), North Goa. She was appointed by DLSA to represent respondent no.1, who is foreign 2026:BHC-GOA:1761 (2) WP-497-2025.odt national in CRRA No.58/2022 pending before DJ-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa. The respondent no.1 made complaint with DLSA against petitioner alleging that petitioner offered her to file Civil Suit on behalf of Mr. Gary Wilson (UK National) regarding his property at Anjuna, Bardez, Goa. She received Rs.15,000/- for filing private Civil Suit. Later on, Mr. Gary Wilson decided not to file suit and claimed refund of Rs.15,000/- to which petitioner refused citing reason that work already performed. The respondent no.1 alleges that petitioner acted unprofessionally, so also refused to return of advanced payment. 3. The acting upon aforesaid complaint, impugned order came to be passed by Chairman DLSA/Principal District Judge, Merces observing that petitioner acted negligently while not attending grievance of respondent no.1. Eventually, issued directions under Rule 8(14) and (17) of National Legal Services Authority (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations, 2010 to discontinue services of petitioner in CRRA No.58/2022 and withdraw other cases allotted to her. The petitioner was held entitled for remuneration to the extent of 50% for cases withdrawn from her. 4. Ms. Namrata Gawade/petitioner submitted that impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing nor material tendered by her in defence (3) WP-497-2025.odt is given consideration. The action is taken for alleged neglect of petitioner in performance of her duty in relation to her engagement in private matter, which was unconcerned with DLSA. The order impugned is ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has been unnecessarily defamed and made to suffer mental torture for which she needs to be compensated. 5. On 30.04.2026, when this matter was heard by this Court (Coram: Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.), Mrs. Maria Correia, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2-Member Secretary, North Goa Legal Services Authority on instruction made statement that Authority is ready and willing to expunge the adverse observations makes in impugned order against petitioner. So also, if petitioner made an application for her empanelment on DSLA, Authority will consider same on its own merits. However, petitioner expressed willingness to continue with matter on merit, particularly because she has been deprived of her remuneration in respect of 16 matters, which were withdrawn from her deference to impugned order. 6. Today, this Court again heard petitioner and Mrs. Maria Curreia, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2. It is informed on behalf of DLSA that petitioner’s entitlement to receive 50% of remuneration amount towards 16 cases withdrawn from her has been acknowledged under impugned order. However, as per procedure, (4) WP-497-2025.odt remuneration would be payable on disposal of respective cases, which are presently handled by other panel Advocate. The petitioner do not dispute that remuneration is payable only on disposal of matters. However, according to her, respondent no.2 has abruptly ordered premature withdrawal of cases handled by her, hence, atleast 50% remuneration ought to have been immediately released. 7. This Court finds that action taken against petitioner under impugned order cannot be countenanced, firstly for reason that she was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing, secondly action is not taken in pursuance to any default in conduct of case allotted by DLSA. Further, allegations made in complaint that petitioner received amount of Rs.15,000/- from respondent no.1 were not supported by evidence, eventually impugned order itself exonerates petitioner to that extent. The text of impugned order sans reason to brand petitioner’s conduct as unprofessional or negligent in any manner. 8. In this backdrop, as agreed on behalf of respondent no.2, adverse remarks against petitioner shall be expunged. Apart from that, respondent no.2 shall release 50% of remuneration amount to petitioner on disposal of respective cases withdrawn from her. The respondent no.2 shall also consider petitioner’s application for empanelment without impeded or influenced by observations in impugned order. (5) WP-497-2025.odt 9. Writ Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. 10. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, pending Civil Applications also stand disposed of. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/August-2026