Why didn't you approach Chief Justice regarding issues of notaries? Bombay High Court to officer

The Bombay High Court on Monday was informed of the dire situation faced by lawyers, specifically notary officers, whose businesses suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic [Regency Coal and Energy Pvt Ltd v. RWE Supply and Trading (India) Pvt Ltd]..On Friday, a Bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav had summoned Advocate Shivaji Dhanage after it was informed that he was notarising documents out of cars stationed near the court premises. During the hearing last week, the Bench was informed that Dhanage had stationed 3-4 cars outside the High Court premises to carry out notarisation of documents required for filing in court. Dhanage used to sit in one vehicle while his clerks sat in other vehicles posing as notaries, the Court was told..On Monday, Advocate Uday Warunjikar appearing for Dhanage informed the Court of the adverse situations in which lawyers were carrying out their work. He stated that due to the pandemic situation, lawyers had to surrender their offices and had been compelled to work from cars. "Lawyers are not permitted to conduct business from Bar rooms or inside High Court offices. Dedicated officers are few, so there are long lines with one officer," Warunjikar stated. To this, the Bench asked why this issue was not raised before the appropriate forum. "Why did you not make a representation to the Chief Justice pointing out these grievances?" Justice Kathawalla asked. The Bench indicated that it would pass an order giving its suggestions on this issue, but these will not be in the form of directions. .The issue regarding Advocate Dhanage arose while the Court was hearing another plea in which defects and blanks were taken note of in a document filed through a lawyer. After the lawyer and the notary tendered an unconditional apology, the defects were allowed to be corrected with a warning.At this point, the Bench was informed about Dhanage. When Dhanage's presence was called for, lawyers on his behalf informed the Court that he was in Delhi and requested the matter be heard the following week.When the Bench raised queries about the trip and his expected date of return, it was told by Dhanage's senior that he was not in Delhi but in Mumbai, and was unwell. The senior usely apologised and prayed for the Court to initiate appropriate steps against Dhanage for making misleading statements.In light of the incorrect statements made, the Court ordered Dhanage to remain present in Court today..[Read February 11 order]